Who Tubes on YouTube?

A great portion of my resources for this blog page comes from YouTube. YouTube has not only provided me with information but has also triggered some inspiration on what to blog in a few cases. So, I thought, why not blog something about YouTube itself. Perhaps before defining how YouTube operates, it would be interesting to view broadcast as a whole.

Contrary to traditional form of broadcast, YouTube is defined as post-broadcast medium. Traditional broadcast is airing through the airwaves. Only because it is traditional, it does not necessarily imply that it is an obsolete technology. Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT), commonly known as freeview in the UK, Satellite Transmission and Cable Transmission, are all traditional form of broadcast and employ of very high-tech technologies.

So, what is post-broadcast then? It is a term opposite of broadcast. Webcast and narrowcast are nearly synonymous terms used for post-broadcast. IPTV (Internet Protocol TV) Video on Demand (VoD) and user-generated video websites such as YouTube and Metacafe, are all forms of web-casting. Webcast is also narrowcast in the sense that it is aimed at a highly specific segment of the public. In other words, the 'broadcaster' does not intend to catch the entire viewing public, as is often the case with traditional form of broadcasting; but only a narrow segment of it.

Web based channels such as 4oD and iPlayer are pay channels. For instance in 4oD, users can select a programme or a movie from 4’s database, independent of when it was aired in the terrestrial channels. However, they also have to pay for the service. Now with the rising of Web2.0, the Internet is presently making a move towards user-generated content service. Such an example is YouTube itself. YouTube is much revolutionary in the way content is generated.

Google owns YouTube, but Google itself is not the content provider. Actually, there is no real 'broadcaster' as such on YouTube. YouTube’s audience produces content for its fellow audience. YouTube is a huge resource of shared media database, which is completely free for any user to access.

YouTube raises serious copyright issues as producing content is one thing and providing is yet another. Much of the website’s content are not the users’ own content but rather stuffs that they upload from other sources. Quoting from Kopytoff Verne, 2006,

YouTube, the popular video Web site, is facing the biggest challenge of its brief but gilded life: complaints about copyright infringement that could destroy its cool factor.

The proliferation of pirated video and music uploaded by users -- everything from concert footage of pop band Death Cab for Cutie to clips of "Gone With the Wind" -- has made the San Bruno startup a target of the entertainment industry, which fears that the illegal free-for-all will crimp its profits.

You Tube is today extremely popular especially amongst young web users. Every day, YouTube users watch more than 100 million clips ranging from "Star Trek" to the latest official music videos. The question that rises is, does YouTube, gaining popularity everyday, not pose a potential threat to other online channels like 4oD and iPlayer, or even terrestrial and satellite channels?

Despite being sued, YouTube seems to be still operating smoothly. The paradox behind this is that YouTube is at least for time being, not a potential threat to the entertainment industry. Instead, it is seen as an oasis for advertising. Once again, according to Verne,

For Hollywood, YouTube is a marketing dream. Already, a number of music acts and television shows -- by accident and through clever promotion -- have boosted their audience through videos and music posted on the Web site.

For example, the indie rock band OK Go got considerable exposure after it posted a music video on YouTube showing its members dancing on a treadmill.

Socio-political trends show that copyright holders are likely not to hinder YouTube’s smooth functioning any sooner as it doing more good than harm to entertainment providers.

As a final analysis, it would be good to end on this video.

Would the Human Race of the Future be Cyborgs or Post-human?

It is difficult to predict with exact certitude what the human of the future is going to look like. However, basing on Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, human has evolved from apes and it is clear enough that the process is not going to stop here.

We started from this

We have reached this stage so far

Are we going to stop here?

Definitely not.

So, what is the face of the future Man like?

Would it be like this?

Modern Science has been able to give us some insights into how the human race can evolved. Evolutionary Theorist Oliver Curry is of the view that the present human species may split into two sub-species similar to HG Wells’s Sci-Fi fiction novel The Time Machine (1895).

According to Curry,

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

The two forms of human race would also be as a result of genetic modifications. The wealthy upper class would be able to afford for the good traits thru genetic selection whilst the lowerclass would have to do with all the undesirable genetic traits. His predictions are similar to HG Wells's Eloi and Morlocks race of humans as depicted in the movie The Time Machine (2002) originally adapted from his novel.

Curry's prediction might seem somewhat far fetched. It is in fact, too early to jump into any conclusion what so ever, but one thing is sure, our over dependence on technology is definitely going to alter our evolution. Mankind would defy nature and would not follow a natural evolution; but would alter his own course of evolution by fiddling with technology. Would we be post-human or cyborgs? Only time would reveal.

To What Extent Can We Control Our Environment?

This blog is in response to a point I brought forward in one of my wikis entitled: Faustian Bargain with close connection to a newspaper mail response I found particularly interesting; featured on the November 27 2007 issue of the Metro newspaper. The reader’s feedback reads as follows:

I am sick of hearing about all the ways in which the human race can stop global warming. Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. Are we humans so arrogant we think we can control the nature?

We are so used to controlling everything around us that it scares us when we are confronted by something that ultimately, will control us. Not only that, but it also gives the Government an excuse to tax the living daylights out of us.

I think it is time to wake up and realise the climate will change, as it always has, whether we like it or not.

D Mason, Tyne and Wear

It is interesting to note that the point I draw in The Faustian Bargain is about how mankind has always wished to control his environment and hates being controlled by it instead. Mason D is also on the same horizon and his line of argument somewhat substantiate my point.

Despite all of our technological advances, controlling nature hazards has always been beyond Man’s reach. More to this, we have also never been confronted by a natural calamity as big as that of the heading Global Warming. Some school of thoughts claim that the Global Warming is occurring as a result of Man’s impact on environment by emitting an excess of Carbon Dioxide.

However, Geographical and Geological studies about Earth reveal that the planet has known various periods of glaciations and global warming independent of human activities; and so since even before the existence of human.



Put differently, we are simply freaked out by the idea that the next global warming followed by another period of glaciations and without forgetting the theory of natural selection, could imply that the Human race is nearing to extinction as our predecessor, the dinosaurs were swiped off the planet.

The iPhone - is it a New Technology?

Prior to seeing the day some six months ago, much hype went around the new gadget. Apple claims that it 're-invents' the phone. It purports, its product is like no ordinary phone but is rather a revolutionary phone that would change the way we make a call.


Though revolutionary in the way cell phones have traditionally been, the iphone remains after all, a mere phone. What Apple claims to be revolutionary is in fact, the fact that it has a very sleek and futuristic look with a touch pad rather than a key pad and converging the iPod, and other devices together. These are only a different perspective of seeing things as uploading mp3 to mobile phones is no new phenomenon as Bluetooth technology has since long allowed mobile users to upload songs onto their phones and camera on mobile phones have seen the day for years now.

This video further mentions that the iphone would change the way we think of phones.



Though it just hit the UK market only a few days ago, would the iPhone change the way we think of phone? The iPhone does no new function, except one which is described as 'visual voicemail’. What is new however, is the way we interact with the tool rather than redefining any new feature that no technology has offered so far. So, why so much hype around something that does nothing new?

Is Convergence a Good or Bad Thing?

We are living at an era of technological zenith. Our everyday environment is surrounded by all kinds of technological gadgetries. Most of us are increasingly becoming what is commonly called technological geeks. Most of us have a cell phone at least and others use mp3 players or ipods, PDA, SatNav on a daily basis. In a few more years to come, ‘god’ knows how many could come and add up to the bulk. All these are supposedly pocket gadgets and it is becoming virtually impossible to carry all of these on oneself. And here comes convergence of technology. Only one gadget includes all of those features.

Our present day cell phones are progressively being converged with more and more other technologies. On a 3G platform, it is possible to make video conferences; browse the web; amongst a lot of many more features; without forgetting the camera which have long integrated the phone, even in earlier generations itself.

A very recent and down to earth example of convergence is the BarclayCard OnePulse Oyster that not only allows one to do banking transaction like a usual debit card but also as a London Underground/Overground Osyer Card.



On the other hand, as of today itself, the TFL (Transport for London) is running a pilot project of using the cell phone to pay at the tube stations.

Convergence makes life easier for some users whilst renders others’ even worst. As supported by this video,


loads of people have never used and even ignore others features available on their phones. Whether convergence is good or not is another debate but one thing is sure, consumers are being taken for stupid, when even when they need one device, they are having to pay for other bungled technologies that they would never be using.

Is the profession of journalism on the verge of extinction?

This is not a so straight forward question as it might seem to be. Present media consumption trend depicts that newspaper consumption is on a decline. Does this necessarily mean that journalism is on the verge of extinction?

Some future-technology pundits have predicted that with the advent of Web 2.0 and Blogs, (bloggers blogging about almost anything), journalism could phase out. However commentator Donnacha Delong does not hold so much of an obscure view about the presumable threat to the professions of journalism. He claims that the professional media does provide users with something ‘truly authoritative’.

Coming back to the question that newspapers consumption is on the decline and whether it has a correlation with news consumption at all; it is first vital to distinguish between traditional and new forms of media.

Traditional forms of media have long been the preserve of newspaper. Lately, online newspapers have been overshadowing print newspaper. This explains for the decline in print newspaper consumption; but in no way implies that people have stopped reading news all together.

Television has also played a major role in eclipsing print newspaper as a media. Digitization has permitted broadcasters to squeeze several channels in fewer bandwidths, thus making it possible for broadcasters to profitably run 24-hour news channels, for example BBC 24, Sky News and CNN. More to this, television and online newspapers, constantly keep consumers informed with news update- something that print newspaper cannot afford. This is likely to be one of the major reasons that people are consuming less print newspaper. Whether the extinction of traditional newspaper is a good thing or not is debatable, however, one thing that is definitely good is that e-newspaper is much greener than print newspaper.

With the extinction of newspaper, is the profession of journalism becoming extinct too? The answer is definitely no. First of all, newspaper is very unlikely to die out completely. A reduced number of journalists would still work for them. Moreover, Television news channels and e-newspapers would still need journalist to bring news.

Barry Diller, in this interview below claims that the key thing for the survival of print newspapers is that they should adapt to changes.



From a personal perspective, in order to make a profitable turnover, print newspaper organisations would have to reinvent and diversify rather that delivering only one form of service.

How far can we trust Web 2.0?

Lately, there has been quite a fuss about Web 2.0. What is Web 2.0? Many pioneers in the area of computing have come with lots of definitions as an explanation of Web 2.0. Tim O’Reiley is one amongst them.

He prefers to describe Web 2.0 as a platform where, contrary to the traditional passive role that audience have had in absorbing information, they are now perceived as editors and content creators.

Web 2.0 is very interesting when considering user experience as users not only act passively but can participate more actively in generating content. However, this brings us to the question of if users become the content generator, how far can we trust the information provided by other users? For instance, the Wikipedia, is one of the largest bank of resources available on the web. Wikipedia is increasingly growing popular amongst web users due to its simplicity in delivering precise information, unlike many other websites. However, the extent to which one can trust the content is debatable. However helpful Wikipedia could be to someone, academic bodies strongly disapprove of Wikipedia as a grounding research.

Similarly, if the whole world of the World Wide Web increasingly goes 2.0, this means that more and more online content would be provided by users rather that an authoritative institution. With this trend, is web 2.0 a threat to the future of the long held perception that the internet is a powerful source of information?