YouTube
I thought the video “An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube,” by mwesch was absolutely fascinating. It was probably the longest YouTube video I’ve ever watched, but well worth it. In essence, the video is about YouTube’s impact on society, and he briefly touches on many topics to give the viewer a better understanding of why YouTube is an enormous part of our current society.
Count me mesmerized.
I’m not a contributor, as in I don’t upload videos, but I watch probably one or two videos on YouTube a day. Somehow, a video always finds it’s way into my daily surfing sessions. I don’t even think twice about it. I’d say it’s pretty well integrated into the fabric of the Internet, and therefore the fabric of our current society.
I think Mr. Wesch’s main point, from which all his other points are derived from, revolve around his idea that “media mediates human relationships. And when media changed, human relationships changed.” Everything else he talks about is in an effort to try and understand how human relationships are changing, and YouTube’s role in the process.
The segment of the video that most fascinated me was the exploration of identity and “reality” on Youtube/Internet. What is “identity?” How can we define that term in today’s society? Is our identity who we are offline? Online? A combination of both? Can we have two (or more) separate identities? Are the online identities “real?” Do they even need to be? How do our online and offline identities affect each other? Do they affect each other? Do we shape these alter identities by what we think other people want to see? Or even shape our “real” identity online to affect how we are seen by others online? But then isn’t this just an offshoot of our “real”/offline identity just transferred to the Internet? All these questions would take 1,000’s of words to try and answer, but it’s an integral question in trying to figure out how relationships are changing with the Internet. Who, exactly, are we interacting with online?
A quote that really informs my opinion on these matters comes from an article discussing, yep you guessed it, David Foster Wallace: “…if they’re in essence willing to annihilate their “real” selves and replace them with these manufactured doppelgangers if that’s what it takes . . . well, then there’s something frighteningly and shamefully real about that.”
Lonelygirl15 may not have been “real” in the sense that she wasn’t an offline person, but when that camera turned on, Lonelygirl15 was real, in that she existed. Her videos prompted real world, physical, online responses – interaction. I understand the feelings of betrayal when it was revealed Lonelygirl15 didn’t have a real world compliment, but does that take away from the connections made during the time she was “alive?”
It reminds me of the James Frey A Million Little Pieces situation and the divide between fiction and non-fiction. Well the Internet is blurring that line in real time, with real people, and it is affecting real relationships and real actions. I think the question is changing from “real” or “fake” to “is this person worth interacting with regardless?”
So seeing as how this is a post about YouTube, I couldn’t leave without introducing you to the YouTube presence of your UTA Baseball team..
This next video actually won the talent show at this year’s Athletic mixer – enjoy
Educated by the Internet 
Re: I understand the feelings of betrayal when it was revealed Lonelygirl15 didn’t have a real world compliment, but does that take away from the connections made during the time she was “alive?”
I think that it does take away. Having been betrayed more than once, one of the feelings I will have is feeling robbed, that something has been taken or stolen from me. If I find that it wasn’t “real” to begin with and that the connection was all based on lies, then isn’t the connection itself a lie?
If I give you an orange to hold in your right hand and I give you an orange to hold in your left hand, do you have two oranges? Yes. But wait! Surprise! I reveal that the orange in your left hand is actually an apple wearing a disguise. Do you still have two oranges? No. You never did have two oranges. Simple comparison but I believe it’s valid.
First off just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to invalidate the feelings of betrayal after Lonelygirl15 was revealed as fake. It’s absolutely understandable people felt betrayed and violated, but I still don’t think that takes away from the original emotions.
I think the connection and the emotions related to the connection are two separate things, related yes, but separate and distinct.
Suppose I give you an orange to hold in your right and and i give you an orange to hold in your left hand, do you have two oranges? Yes. .Then suppose you bite into one of the oranges and it tastes and feels like an orange. Then I tell you that it wasn’t actually an orange, but some lab made fruit. Does that change the way the orange tasted when you first bit into it? No. Does it change the way you remember the orange tasting? Maybe.
I think more to the point though is that the Internet is making this situation increasingly possible, and as a user one has to be aware that someone might not be exactly who they say they are, and that this isn’t always a bad thing. Maybe it falls on the user to be less trusting of who they communicate and connect with.
Personally I would have done the same things what Lonelygirl15 did (make fake identity). I do not connect with that easily it takes time and plus is like what actor and actress of Hollywood do they have a stage name and real birth name what to shame about?