I think YouTube is an interesting phenomenon. It creates a power of visual storytelling that almost anyone can access. The interactivity is a psychological breakthrough in that connections made through various videos provide the viewer interesting ways in which he can synthesize loads of new information handed to him in any myriad of combinations.
However, I wonder how the readers of my blog feel about YouTube, specifically its role as a foundation for a new sort of online community where people post video journals with their lives for all to see (although everyone is an actor since they are aware of the camera). I have always been against it for several reasons, perhaps the most prominent being the personal information that is so frequently and blindly given out through them. The internet is a twisted place, and YouTube is bound to be prime stalking grounds for predators.
And then there are people like this guy below, who seems to be addicted to YouTube to the point where it affects his behavior. In his defense, I think he is autistic or there is something else going on that isn't 100% apparent just by hearing what he has to say. In any case, he says some goofy things that would be easy to scoff at, but in the end I actually felt somewhat depressed by his post:
Is the empowerment of the individual on YouTube worth these sorts of videos, where a young man unwittingly exposes himself to the ridicule of those who misunderstand what's probably really going on? I skimmed through some of the comments and I just felt bad for the kid. Yes, some of the things he says are goofy, but the way he reacts to life experiences makes me feel like he needs better understanding from the audience, something that he doesn't seem to be aware of enough to address.
Anyways, just a thought on the ethics of exposing your personal life on the world wide web.
10 comments:
I'm all about youtube, but I had never seen or heard about these video journals. I couldn't make it through the one you posted, he seems a bit disturbed. I don't know how I feel about posting your journal online like this, but if it works for him then I say that's his choice.
I don't know what your argument is, Shark. There is nothing unethical about someone willingly posting videos of themselves and nothing unethical about people willingly viewing these videos.
Personally, I don't understand why people think that the rest of the population is interested in listing to their ordinary, mundane life. In reality, unless you know the person, you're not going to watch someone's video blog. This is the reason I have never bothered to start a blog; unlike you and Cabeza who are legends in your own time, I can't think of anyone who would care to read about my terribly ordinary life.
I don't know that its unethical, because its all done willingly and such. But I do think its a bit wierd, even creepy.
It seems the technological equivalent of exhibitionism and voyeurism. But that's just my thought.
And, as scott points out, you are indeed a legend in your own time. But remember, shark, a legend's only a lonely boy when he goes home alone.
Oh, and I think that kid was only pretending to be challenged, which is less sad, but more blameworthy.
Just to mix things up, I'd like to submit that there are potential ethical problems when YouTube video journal posters are 1) Minors and 2) Mentally challenged (regardless of whether this kid is or not).
Should minors and dependents be allowed to bare their thoughts, names, interests, locations, frustrations, et cetera to any and all who want to know? I think there may be an ethical problem with that. Drinking and smoking ages exist to protect youths from irresponsible damage to themselves. Maybe the same idea can apply to those who post. A video blogger opens him or herself to not just ridicule, but all sorts of unthinkable abuses from internet predators and scammers.
I'm not saying I firmly believe there are serious ethical questions here, I'm just saying that there is probably more to it than previous commenters are giving credit for.
I absolutely agree with Cabeza that there are problems with allowing certain groups to post on youtube. But the objections you raise seem more practical than ethical. In my mind, it isn't somehow unfair, or inherently wrong for minors or dependants to post on youtube, but it is dangerous. Perhaps ignoring that danger is reckless and that recklessness is unethical.
Thanks, Cabeza.
To clarify my point of view:
I consider this to be a matter of ethics because of the power it places in the hands of those who don't understand said power. This is an extreme comparison, which perhaps invalidates my point a little, but what the heck: it's like gun restrictions. We don't let eight-year-olds own shotguns because they would most likely harm themselves or others with them.
YouTube is an amazing feature of modern technology, but it is a threat to the safety and social status of people who would abuse it or misunderstand it. It is an ethical question partially of YouTube for permitting this potentially-sick form of community to exist, and partially of our own for allowing our families to become involved.
I'm sorry, but "it's their life, they can do what they want with it" is an unacceptable response to me, as my concerns are directed mostly towards those who are too ignorant or innocent to realize the repercussions of getting involved. In any case, this could be YOUR child one day, some teenaged kid who is finding it easier to make "friends" online than it is to go outside and serve his neighbor.
I would argue that the effects of YouTube (and other such websites) could potentially have an effect not unlike pornography on the psyche -- warping one's mind to accept a false world as a reality, thus setting him up for expectations that ultimately either won't be fulfilled or won't bring a happy lifestyle.
I think the ethical question lies in the recklessness of ignoring the danger rather than in the activity itself.
But that really is a question of ethics, I think.
Shark, like JKC said, you raise some valid concerns, but it still remains that you aren't talking about ethics, but in the dangers of allowing some groups of people to post on youtube. Ethics implies that something is morally right or wrong, good/evil. You aren't arguing that it is morally wrong to willingly view and post video on the internet. You are arguing that it may be dangerous or bring harm to some groups of people. It's like driving--is driving a vehicle unethical? Of course not. But one might argue that certain groups of people that drive could bring harm on themselves or others; hence the laws we have to keep children and blind people from driving.
I think you and I agree, scott. But to defend shark, those who maintain youtube do have a responsibility to do what is reasonable to make sure that it does not put people at risk. If they act recklessly toward that responsibility, I don't think its inappropriate to call that recklessness unethical.
Post a Comment