There are many eloquent descriptions of why the business model is flawed, in the comments for this story already.
If you don't agree, then you don't agree. But there isn't a 'memo' or conspiracy to formulate opinion - there is just a subjective reflection of the majority-held opinion.
Nice work on the ad hominems. If I appear glib, it's because I do have a wider agenda of helping to defuse the ability of fear to bludgeon rationality into submission - towards that end I do think I've succeeded in this case.
And to borrow a mentality from recent American foreign policy - if a few innocent articles get in the way, then that's acceptable collateral damage.
When we live in an age where fear of terrorism is not used to push forward political agenda, then maybe yes, we will be able to have a 'sensible' conversation about Al-Qaeda without doubting the motives of the stakeholders.
if I just wanted to be a skeptical little shit, I could always just quote the parent and reply, "Yawn. Proof please. Next."
Any time Al-Qaeda is mentioned, it is to sell copy or to push an agenda. Preferably both.
When rights and statutes are being trampled upon all over the world with no proof that what we are giving up is worth less of that which we sacrifice, it is the duty of the populace to question their governance and its mouth, the media, in all its forms.
If that makes me a skeptical little shit, then so be it.
Of course, I was referring to the entire war and every article about it when I was responding to someone who asked for proof about this particular article.
Well maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the whole "yawn... next" phraseology was intended to address this article as the latest in a series rather than an atomic item, separate from all other instances of media and abuse-of-truth contexts.
As you say, the reporting and subject matter in this piece (as a single item devoid of any context) is not controversial.
Proof for what? That they're producing propaganda? Do you really doubt that?
Proof that it is something I should be overly concerned about. Proof that this isn't some prelude to removing the rights of ordinary citizens to use encryption, or to demand they give up their keys to the Government upon request, as in the UK. Proof that the propaganda I should be worrying about is the one from abroad, and not the harder-to-detect propaganda that comes from a reputable source.
Learning how to look for correlation in huge uncontrolled data sets will require a new paradigm... or it will ultimately be useless and even perhaps, unsuccessful. The ability to find statistically significant correlation (i.e. not Mary-in-Toast) in huge datasets is a prerequisite condition.
But that goes for any visualisation technique - look to Edward Tufte or Stephen Few for detailed examples of how even the simple xy-graph can be abused.
Yes, knowing that there are lots of species of organisms in the air that we didn't know about before is sort of interesting I guess, but it doesn't really tell us anything useful. WTF? It tells us that money spent on discovering those organisms will not be in vain -- that there is an area worthy of further investigation.
The paradigm is embedded in the quantity, or subset, of data you choose to analyse.
For example, to detect stress you might traditionally measure heartbeat, skin conductivity, pupil dilation.
In the "petabyte age" you throw in the number of times the subject uses the letter 's'; how frequently they use the 'reload' button on the browser; what colour of pants they wore last tuesday; Pepsi vs. coca cola; the number of times they picked their nose in 1997 and any and every other bit of data you have on the subject.
In the "petabyte age", most of the data you sift through will show no correlation, but you have a much better chance of finding the unexpected if indeed, there is some unknown factor out there.
The point isn't that there isn't crud on YouTube. There is - for sure. The point is that through the many-eyes approach, the very rare item of quality (however the populace determines that dynamically), can be discovered, disseminated and distributed to a wider audience.
Yup - the GP was asking why the consumer would rather go to YouTube rather than thedailyshow.com
But there is a potential advantage for the producer as well - e.g. if The Late Show got a smaller cut of the ad revenue by being a YouTube partner, rather than running their own distribution site, but a wider audience.
It's gloriously unscientific but The Daily Show hasn't had any large surges of search-interest since Viacom sued in March 2007. To me this suggests that less people are sharing, and talking about The Daily Show now.
What would prevent YouTube from becoming exactly as broadcast television? Broadcast television and YouTube have completely different barriers to entry. They are on opposite ends of the scale.
For example, something like Chocolate Rain would not be placed before 24 million viewers on broadcast television. It works only because you can email it or otherwise share it with your friends.
Statistically, YouTube is a more accurate gauge of what people like than Nielson -- it's driven by consumers sharing what they like with other people who may just do the same if they like it too.
I'm a bit more optimistic about barrier #1 -- it seems that the only reason that television rakes in advertising dollars is because it's the most popular medium for distributing content.
There's nothing inherently magical about television, and I think we're just waiting for the populace to grok that the idea of the television set as we grew up with, will soon go the way of the phonograph. Around that point market forces should redress the balance.
In addition, there's no need for a show to start with a 24 episode commitment, or for seasons to be artificially constructed for sweeps. A project could start online with next to no budget, just one episode, and jump-start the future episodes that way.
Yes but the popular videos are IMO crap. Then change the situation.
This is exactly the one advantage which YouTube gives you which the "shut up and watch" old media does not.
If you cannot popularise quality content, then the fault lies with the populace, or yourself - not the distribution medium.
We are in the early days of exploring our cognitive surplus, and yes - some of these explorations mimic the tricks mainstream media has previously used to grab viewers. So if you're telling me that 50% of the most popular YouTube videos are not just thinly-veiled sex-related enticements, then I think we can agree that we're watching a fascinating experiment unfold.
I do, however, object to the phrase "partners are now whoring themselves to get more views." If you look at the evils that a monopoly stranglehold on the channels of media distribution (everything from sitcoms to news), has wrecked upon society, then a strong case could be made that hastening the democratization and financial viability of those channels is nothing less than a moral imperative.
For one, because Viacom limit distribution by country. For two, because there is no way to find related content -- if you're watching an interview on The Daily Show, you're probably interested in watching that same person being interviewed on The Late Show.. regardless of the fact that they compete amongst themselves.
Note though, that user-generated content is consistently improving in quality. Ad a viable revenue stream and as advertising dollars continue to shift from mainstream media to user generated content, the market becomes a lot more interesting.
Why do Microsoft need to claim that they wrote all of/retain all rights to an ODF plugin to MS Office?
I'm not being funny - I just don't see the benefit in terms of effort and reward.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't agree, then you don't agree. But there isn't a 'memo' or conspiracy to formulate opinion - there is just a subjective reflection of the majority-held opinion.
We know their business model is fatally flawed, but the legislation they've bought will still be hanging around for years to come.
Because if you file for a patent, the absolute last thing you care about is money?
And to borrow a mentality from recent American foreign policy - if a few innocent articles get in the way, then that's acceptable collateral damage.
When we live in an age where fear of terrorism is not used to push forward political agenda, then maybe yes, we will be able to have a 'sensible' conversation about Al-Qaeda without doubting the motives of the stakeholders.
if I just wanted to be a skeptical little shit, I could always just quote the parent and reply, "Yawn. Proof please. Next."
Any time Al-Qaeda is mentioned, it is to sell copy or to push an agenda. Preferably both.
When rights and statutes are being trampled upon all over the world with no proof that what we are giving up is worth less of that which we sacrifice, it is the duty of the populace to question their governance and its mouth, the media, in all its forms.
If that makes me a skeptical little shit, then so be it.
Then I demand proof of collusion. :-)
:-) It's not required for group action.
Of course, I was referring to the entire war and every article about it when I was responding to someone who asked for proof about this particular article.
Well maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the whole "yawn... next" phraseology was intended to address this article as the latest in a series rather than an atomic item, separate from all other instances of media and abuse-of-truth contexts.
As you say, the reporting and subject matter in this piece (as a single item devoid of any context) is not controversial.
Who is asking you to be overly concerned about it?
Then why is it news?
This just in - terrorists don't leave their passwords on post-it notes underneath their keyboards.
1) How would one prove these?
That's not my problem. I am not the governmental apparatus which has been heading in those directions.
Simply I'm laying down why I am skeptical.
2) Where is that mentioned in the article or summary?
It isn't - these are my extrapolations.
Nothing is as easy as cheap skepticism.
No - inaction is far easier - we, the citizenry, have been recently far too guilty of that however.
Proof for what? That they're producing propaganda? Do you really doubt that?
Proof that it is something I should be overly concerned about. Proof that this isn't some prelude to removing the rights of ordinary citizens to use encryption, or to demand they give up their keys to the Government upon request, as in the UK. Proof that the propaganda I should be worrying about is the one from abroad, and not the harder-to-detect propaganda that comes from a reputable source.
Yawn. Proof please. Next.
I'm not sure that your distinction is significant enough to argue the point with.
But that goes for any visualisation technique - look to Edward Tufte or Stephen Few for detailed examples of how even the simple xy-graph can be abused.
What is not useful about that?
For example, to detect stress you might traditionally measure heartbeat, skin conductivity, pupil dilation.
In the "petabyte age" you throw in the number of times the subject uses the letter 's'; how frequently they use the 'reload' button on the browser; what colour of pants they wore last tuesday; Pepsi vs. coca cola; the number of times they picked their nose in 1997 and any and every other bit of data you have on the subject.
In the "petabyte age", most of the data you sift through will show no correlation, but you have a much better chance of finding the unexpected if indeed, there is some unknown factor out there.
E.g. the winners of the 2007 YouTube awards.
For sure - but related content is one way in which YouTube can provide a superior (not perfect) user-experience than say, thedailyshow.com
But there is a potential advantage for the producer as well - e.g. if The Late Show got a smaller cut of the ad revenue by being a YouTube partner, rather than running their own distribution site, but a wider audience.
It's gloriously unscientific but The Daily Show hasn't had any large surges of search-interest since Viacom sued in March 2007. To me this suggests that less people are sharing, and talking about The Daily Show now.
For example, something like Chocolate Rain would not be placed before 24 million viewers on broadcast television. It works only because you can email it or otherwise share it with your friends.
Statistically, YouTube is a more accurate gauge of what people like than Nielson -- it's driven by consumers sharing what they like with other people who may just do the same if they like it too.
Get thee to Viral Video Film School!
There's nothing inherently magical about television, and I think we're just waiting for the populace to grok that the idea of the television set as we grew up with, will soon go the way of the phonograph. Around that point market forces should redress the balance.
In addition, there's no need for a show to start with a 24 episode commitment, or for seasons to be artificially constructed for sweeps. A project could start online with next to no budget, just one episode, and jump-start the future episodes that way.
This is exactly the one advantage which YouTube gives you which the "shut up and watch" old media does not.
If you cannot popularise quality content, then the fault lies with the populace, or yourself - not the distribution medium.
We are in the early days of exploring our cognitive surplus, and yes - some of these explorations mimic the tricks mainstream media has previously used to grab viewers. So if you're telling me that 50% of the most popular YouTube videos are not just thinly-veiled sex-related enticements, then I think we can agree that we're watching a fascinating experiment unfold.
I do, however, object to the phrase "partners are now whoring themselves to get more views." If you look at the evils that a monopoly stranglehold on the channels of media distribution (everything from sitcoms to news), has wrecked upon society, then a strong case could be made that hastening the democratization and financial viability of those channels is nothing less than a moral imperative.
For one, because Viacom limit distribution by country. For two, because there is no way to find related content -- if you're watching an interview on The Daily Show, you're probably interested in watching that same person being interviewed on The Late Show.. regardless of the fact that they compete amongst themselves.
The studios screwed themselves on this one.
Huffington Post/Newsweek, claims McCain Campaign Aides Steered "Secret" Campaign For Telecom Immunity. Not that it's easy to find anyone in Washington without connections, but still.
Why do Microsoft need to claim that they wrote all of/retain all rights to an ODF plugin to MS Office? I'm not being funny - I just don't see the benefit in terms of effort and reward.