YouTube's Dark SideHow the video-sharing site stifles creativity.

Remarks from the Fray:

What I like about YouTube is that it has so many "bad" videos.

I sit with my four year old son and teach him about tubas using high school concerts, how cars are made with a few old East German industrial films, and entertained him by dozens of videos of garbage trucks doing what garbage trucks do best (crushing garbage). I don't want art; I want the so-and-so fire department turning on the sirens.

And, then I find art. I found "We Need Girlfriends" on YouTube, and many other short films. Arty sites demand a bit more commitment, and in a short break some yahoos doing a high school dramatic reading from the Great Gatsby are nearly as good as half the "art" out there.

Does YouTube stifle creativity? No. It gives hope to the fifteen year old who can't crack into the sites with higher standards.

--darling

(To reply, click here.)

No Nudity, 10Min. limit & No streaming...

Okay, these are not creative constraints, they are technical constraints which eliminate some creative forms. Frank Lloyd Wright's town houses don't make the the top 50 music charts because they're buildings, NOT because they're bad songs. If you want to write a haiku stop complaining about sonnet length.

--Tommy2Hats

(To reply, click here.)

Youtube's "permissiveness" and its choice of short-form video clips are linked. The time limit means would-be scalawags can't post entire TV shows and movies without splitting them up. That decision helps YouTube argue that it's not designed to be a gigantic copyright infringement tool. Perhaps that'll make a difference in court, perhaps it won't. But it's the kind of design decision companies make in the face of copyright law run amok: an arbitrary limit on functionality, a sacrifice to appease the angry lawyer gods.

--grimmelm

(To reply, click here.)

You would think that the article would note that Slate (and its new video site) might have a conflict of interest with You Tube. The only acknowledgment in the entire article is that the author will be an extra in a video sitcom that does not appear on You Tube.

--DeaH

(To reply, click here.)

The article smacks of elitism, rather than insightful criticism. In all forms of media, the most popular stuff is not necessarily the most critically acclaimed. That's just the way it is.

With the advent of YouTube, it's never been easier to put out your own videos. And it's never been easier to find your audience. That's a good thing.

And if you think your stuff is too good to sit with the unwashed masses at YouTube, you can always publish elsewhere and settle for the smaller audience. If it's that good, someone will probably just rip it and stick it on YouTube anyway.

--hw2084

(To reply, click here.)

(7/19)