Another Girl's Trash....

As I was reading a recent New York Times on-line article, I couldn't help but get a little upset, as well as find myself humored. Beinga Broadcast/Journalsim major, I am well aware of the fact that reporters are constantly looking for 'the next big story', and giving your stories a dramatic tone/twist is mandatory in keeping the readers attention...However, people that are contradict themselves annoy me.

Throughout the semester I have, with much thanks to Dr. Platt, been graced by the New York Times on-line articles constantly keeping me updated with YouTube, and new changes and strides it has been taking. Because, afterall, when I Google YouTube, it's pretty obvious what a majority of my results entail.

For the most part, NYT has had very positive things to say about YouTube, however this recent article, not only seemed badmouth YouTube, it also contradicted some of NYT's previous articles pertaining to YouTube.

Maybe I just feel this way because it goes against how I percieve YouTube...

The article basically rips on one of the things that I have stated in previous posts that I enjoy most about YouTube. The fact that YouTube has an identity vs. demographics approach to their broadcasting. It picks up on the fact that I (yes, I'm ashamed to admidt this) frequently search out different things about Michael Phelps, whether it be news casts, talk shows, or other things bestowing his awkward face. So now, everytime I log in to my channel (YouTube user account) I am presented with a few newer videos involving Michael Phelps, that YouTube feels I may be interested in watching. I LOVE this because it saves me time, and conects me to things I normally may not have found in my searches.

But, the NYT article argues that this is breaching a users sense of privacy, and if someone was searching for something that may be frowned upon by others, everyone will be able to view this, and judge them. The article continues to explain and emphasize how difficult it is to sift through the privacy settings to make your site more discrete...if I can figure it out, ANYONE can figure it out.

They continue by saying that there's no middle ground, and if you wish to partake in this community, you must be willing to compromise your secrecy. However, as I've stated in previous posts, that's absolutely not true...at all. You just can't post videos, or view videos that have been set to privacy settings (as in NOT public, NYT). But you are still welcome to view most videos.

I think that YouTube, as well as almost anything found on the Internet is a prime example of what Dr. Bugeja presents as trading privacy for convenience. We are offered so much technology through YouTube, but in return, we have to let others share in and witness what we are viewing.

Although it's probably pretty lame to be gawking over a gangly swimmer at age 23, but I'm okay with everyone knowing I'm a huge dork.