What Is Real On YouTube? 277
An anonymous reader writes, "The popularity of user-generated video sites like YouTube has given rise to deceptive videos created for self-promotion, advertising, or even smearing rival brands. This latter format, dubbed the 'smear video,' depicts a rival brand's product exhibiting fictitious faults. One example is the 21-second YouTube video entitled 'Samsung handset, easy to break at one try!', which shows a smiling woman easily snapping the new Samsung Ultra Edition mobile phone in half. Samsung says the phone was rigged to snap and the video has now been removed from the site. The article also accuses those who created the now infamous Lonelygirl15 YouTube videos of 'deception for profit. Misrepresenting commercials as independent user-generated content, actors as members of the public, and fiction as fact.' Will user-generated video sites increasingly confront visitors with the disturbing possibility that the video they're watching is not a home video at all, but a sophisticated ad campaign?"
What is real on Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
On sites like YouTube, however, the premise is that you're seeing personal content being posted. Really, it's just an extension to the maxim of taking in content with a critic
Re:What is real on Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
More news at 11
How are fake videos any different from fake websites?
I wish someone had taken the old "fake website" con, changed it to "fake video" and patented the idea.
For the day that faux computer generated humans are perfected, I call dibs on "fake webcam sluts"
Prior Art (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure a google search will show enough examples of "prior art" =)
Re:What is real on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say that the difference is that videos have a higher trust level then random websites. Websites themself are a new thing that didn't existed before, so we handle them with some extra care. But for the past 100 or so years we already had cinemas and later TVs to show us video, so we are already familar with them and don't handle them with extra care. Sure, what you have seen on TV or on movies might not have been real, but it was relativly easy to judge the 'reality level'. If the military is showing you how nice war is, its easy to tell that it might be propaganda, if Fox News is showing it, it might not be much difficult either. If advertising is shown on TV it is normally cleary marked. In short, if you see something in the theatre or in TV you know its source and its purpose and can judge it on that basis.
Youtube however is different, you don't have a source, its anonymous, even more anonymous then a webpage, where IP and 'whois' will often uncover the truth. It however doesn't even stop with that, Youtube videos are also shown out of context, when something is shown on TV you have some information on when it was filmed and such, on Youtube you havn't, you just have the video itself. Often the videos are even cut, incomplete or posted with incorrect description to blur any clear hint to the true origin of the material.
I don't think this is just a problem with advertisment, since with that you sooner or later still have to get the product name so that you can actually buy the thing and by that you can figure out the source. I think this could turn into a much bigger problem, kind it alters our perception of reality. There are already tons of advertisment videos on Youtube with the ending cut out, so you no longer can easily tell if it is advertisment, some piece of a movie or real video footage of a real event. For example look at this video: Lost Wheel [google.com] What does is show? A real event or what? Could you tell it from the video alone?
Now that Lost Wheel video of course doesn't show an event of any real importance, so in that case its a non issue. But what about military propagande that sneaks in, while being masked as real footage from the battlefield shoot by a normal soldier? What about cool home-made stunt video that in reality was just a special effect? Kids are already repeating a lot of stuff they see in those videos, that might not exactly get better when the stuff they try to repeat is impossible to begin with. I am not really sure where it is going, but spending some time on Youtube or GoogleVideo can certainly be quite a bit confusing when it comes to judging what of that what you have seen is real and what isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We've been dealing with that since The Three Stooges. Just natural selection at work, nothing to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
However after her interview on MTV, it turns out she may nothing more then a clever marketing viral advert for revver.com which is a rival of YouTube.
I recommend watching the lonelyOctober videos on youTube. The purple puppet explains the plot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. I saw threads about her on several message boards I frequent where people who were decently intelligent (judging by the quality of their posts on other subjects) were discussing her without appearing to have a clue that it was a set-up.
Re:What is real on Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
What? There are astroturfers on
BTW-- I hear that everything on Google Video [google.com] is real, because they don't do evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
From a Washington Post article: "[Lonelygirl15] was a 19-year-old acress named Jessica Rose." Skip to the next paragraph: "Rose landed on 'The Tonight Show.'"
The profit is in self-promotion. The other filmmakers "have since signed with Creative Artists Agency."
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am SHOCKED (Score:5, Funny)
This comes as a great revelation to us all!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as people continue to be gullible idiots*, there will be people who will exploit that.
*The fact that anybody believed lonelygirl15 was real, more than a couple minutes into her first episode, indicates they still are
Re:I am SHOCKED (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the tubes! (Score:5, Funny)
CG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked, too!
I say go ahead and fork the project! Let's put an end to all these anonymous
Sorry, wrong story.
Just YouTube? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just YouTube? (Score:5, Interesting)
Libel/Slander (Score:2)
Re:Libel/Slander (Score:5, Insightful)
If youtube gives in to every narrow interest that wants something pulled, it will definitely lose its edge and some of its market share.
Re:Just YouTube? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not suprising in the least that lame stealth marketing will eventually worm its influence wherever it can. The only real fix for the "unauthentic slimeball problem" is a reputation system that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just YouTube, but the internet won. (Score:2)
This has been a main criticism of the internet since the first newsgroups began appearing years ago.
It's not a new issue, it only looks new because there used to be only three broadcasters who could misbehave. Remember the exploding gas tank fiasco [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Was anyone honestly fooled by lonelygirl? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this a real story? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is this a real story? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah. It can't be real. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Joke aside, the internet is a media like TV and newspapers and should be treated equally: With sceptism.
The only thing that keeps us away from being puppets of the media is our ability to judge and do a reality check. If you see something "stunning" or amazing - be sure that the first thing you do is disregard it for a moment and don't start telling it to others, since that's when speculation and lies become "the uofficial truth".
But then again.. if we were all able to tell when the media was lying... I guess there wouldn't be tabloids
Re: (Score:2)
>'deception for profit. Misrepresenting commercials as independent user-generated content, actors as members of the public, and fiction as fact.'
Three out of four of which apply to the mainstream advertising industry.
Re: (Score:2)
This can only be true for people who have a clue, which is a shockingly small quantity of human beings, especially in our great United States. I would imagine that most people can't comprehend that someone would lie to them, for any reason at all, or no reason at all. Or they're just really damn gullible. So simply asking them to flex their brain and not take everything for face value flat-out wi
Re:Phew... (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's a good thing. If you get practice with reality checks reading the harmless absurdities posted in
I agree about keeping the FCC off the Tubes. Their silly regulations make public broadcast of "bad words" a luxury for the super-rich. And did you know that FCC fines are tax deductable? So fucking bogus.
digg has same problem (Score:2)
this reminds me of an interview with ... someone (Score:5, Insightful)
They were talking about the concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones, like the ones in the carribean that pirates frequented - lawless places which somehow managed to govern themselves, and because the interview was in Wired around 1999 or so, the interviewer likened it to afterhours raves and waxed poetic about how awesome it'd be and how we'd be free of corporate etc etc. So the interviewee said "You want to see a TAZ in action, you go look at a toxic-waste dumping 'rave' - where a corporation hires some dubious character to take barrels of waste out into the TAZ that is the open ocean and just throw it over the side. That's the destiny of a TAZ, not some hippy vision of freedom and egalitarianism." Of course, I'm butchering the quote, but gimme a break, I read it like 7 years ago.
Anyhow, the point of this exasperatingly long-winded anecdote is that things like youtube, which promise freedom and creativity for all will always end up used for evil for the same reason as the TAZ - because freedom is nice and everything, but money trumps all. And the money will drive a wedge of mistrust between us all.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon (Score:3, Insightful)
Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy. Dumping in the oceans you say? Already happens nowadays, witho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but the guy's point was that these zones would always be co-opted, and that while living in a society of law is kind of a pain in the ass at times, it's the citizens only protection against larger, more powerful entities such as corporations, and that the desire for autonomous zones is a nice idea but in practice amounts to suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
And living in a society of law is great until the rich and powerful (and current Presidential Administrations, for example) do not follow the laws that they force and enforce on the poor and less powerful. For example we citizens of the US follow the laws in the Constitution, while our President disregards more than half of them, and has me scared out of my gourd that I might get pic
Re: (Score:2)
You will not find me entirely unsympathetic to this view, but it's still hyperbole to me. I'd certainly agree that our government is pretty broken right now, but I can't even start to imagine what would happen if all the gloves came off. Child labor, debtors prison, indentured servitude
Re: (Score:2)
Those shoes you're wearing (ok... maybe not yours, but surely these Nike's...) were probably sewn together with the soft touch only a child can give. Granted those children are being exploited elsewhere in the world, outside of our laws, but companies within our borders are still using that labor to keep their costs low.
I admit that some of what I say is exaggerated, perhaps even unfounded
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police. In and of themselves, corporations are not very intimidating. Corporations exercise their control by getting regulati
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful
Well now, that's patently false. I'll just point you at car safety and tobacco/liquor advertising laws and make my exit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon (Score:5, Insightful)
> Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now
Seat belts don't save lives, eh? Ralph Nader was just a tool of the auto industry? Big Tobacco engineered the ban on cigarette advertising on TV as a clever ruse to lock out the smaller producers, who through some nebulous market forces are unable to sponsor racing teams? Standard Oil was broken up because it
I'll agree that in general, laws are written by the rich for the rich, but there are also some that are written for the little guy by good legislators. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no such thing as a class action suit, no such thing as OSHA, no anti-trust laws (ok, well there practically aren't any more, but you know what I mean), etc.
Taking a position that ALL laws favor the rich with NO EXCEPTIONS is simply ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon (Score:3, Interesting)
That is (usually) correct. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, most attempts to create exceptions on any kind of large scale have (so far) been corrupted to the point where they c
Re: (Score:2)
It was in Wired magazine, lo these many years ago. Of this I am sure.
Crackpot, kettle, black (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like big media don't want amateurs moving in on their territory.
to clear up any confusion (Score:2)
Seth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bic pen vs. kryptonite lock 1 [youtube.com]
bic pen vs. kryptonite lock 2 [youtube.com]
bic pen vs. kryptonite lock 3 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we had been watching more closely, half of our work would have been unneccessary. When we spin the lock around, the bracket of the lock comes out of the hole in like two more cranks on the jack, but we didn't notice it until we cranked about ten times.
I've heard a sawz-all can work, but it probably still takes longer than a jack.
Seth
Real or not.. (Score:4, Funny)
The internet misleads? (Score:5, Funny)
Thread Worthless (Score:2)
There now it has been said!
Without the dancing little characters holding the signs.
Sounds fishy to me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I'm a little ironied out...
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
What if someone whose Samsung phone broke made that video versus a rival company making it. Would it matter? I don't think so. Because again, SOMEONE had to have problems with that phone breaking. Whether a rival company made and paid for it or the pissed off consumer did it for free, I don't think it matters...
People get mad about not knowing when they're being advertised to. They shouldn't. Everyone has agendas. Do your research and listen to more than one source.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, stereotypes are usually based in total ignorance, and catch on because others are also completely ignorant and don't know any better.
Similarly, the conclusion that "if it was completely made up, it wouldn't rise in popularity" is also falacious. I think the vast majority of entries
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, sometimes they are completely made up. Look up "Audi sudden acceleration CBS 60 Minutes" or "GM pickup rocket engine NBC Dateline" to see how respected news organizations do publicize non-existent product defects. In the Audi / CBS case, CBS used unverified anecdotes as the basis for hysterical reporting. Never mind that su
It's Called Psychological Warfare (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, companies and people can do it to each other!
Seriously though, take a step back for a moment and ask yourself a couple of questions:
1. Why should I trust anything on the site in question? They don't say they are purveyors of trustworthy data. I think the problem is that "trustworthy videos" may not be an expectation they want to meet.
2. What does anyone gain by visiting the site in question?
When did actors stop being members of the public? (Score:2)
Can I stop being a member of the public?
Re:When did actors stop being members of the publi (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if people felt that now (Score:5, Interesting)
Asking the question "Will user-generated video sites increasingly confront visitors with the disturbing possibility that the video they're watching is not a home video at all, but a sophisticated ad campaign?" at this point in the history of the Internet is just silly and evidence that the "Anonymous Reader" is woefully out of touch with reality and needs to quit being so naive. Deception is everywhere. Even the bum on the street begging for your change may not even be a REAL bum. There are so many deceptive acts taking place out there and if YouTube letting some unscrupulous ad agency post an ad to generate revenue is the biggest worry I have then I'd say I'm doing pretty good.
In other words, big deal. I'm not going to YouTube to determine what's real and what's not or who's lying to me about what. It's so inconsequential that I don't even care who's going to get sent up the river for such a travesty. I'm going to YouTube to be entertained and even commercials are entertaining at times. Just watch the commercials on the SuperBowl for evidence of that. If someone on YouTube wants to lie to me about it then fine, it's not going to impact my life adversely because I don't believe everything I read, see or hear. Especially if there is only one instance of bad press like the Samsung phone when there are droves of people out there with opinions that are the polar opposite. It's on me if I am so gullible to not see through something as silly as that Samsung video that was posted. It's even worse if I base a consumer decision on such a video and limit my research to just that video. Shame on me for being such a stooge if that were true.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately many people go by "where there's smoke, there's fire". Particularly be
Shouldn't this be posted by Roland Piquepaille (Score:5, Funny)
--- Greenpeace Apologizes for Apple Stink [roughlydrafted.com]
Main Tube Too (Score:2)
Crap. (Score:2)
Entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
So please, ad people, continue bringing us your Wazzaaaaaa's and your Geico Gekkos and your dancing transforming cars, and whatever else you can think of, blatant or not. Make me laugh. Make me yell. Make me think about buying your products, or of discontinuing service with your competitors. I will continue to temper my decisions with research and past experiences as my guides, but if you have a truely superior product or service to offer, then I will appreciate a truely superior ad campaign to tell me of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The general mass of people are expecting home-videos on YouTube, not subtle advertising. Part of YouTube's charm was that these were real-people (IE not professionals) making home videos. Even if it results in the the exact same product, it makes a difference if it was a professional advertisement or an amateur home-video. It's the
Re:Entertainment (Score:4, Informative)
If only it were that easy. I'm in advertising, and believe me, there is not a single creative in this industry who DOESN'T want to put out great creative that people love. They want the fame, they want the glory, they want the Addy, and they want the money. Unfortunately they fight several factors that basically give you the ads we've all come to know and hate. Those factors are budget, deadline, and the client. Neither of which we have much, if any control over.
Fortunately, as clients start to realize the mantra of "you can't MAKE a viral video, it BECOMES viral" the only real change they have of getting a shot at it is to really let the creatives go balls out and do something crazy. Often times this can be done on a very limited budget. Just thought I'd shed a little light on things from this side of the table.
YouTube may have Napster-like legal problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the content on YouTube is either pirated, marketing material, or total crap.
Which is a real problem. YouTube is starting to have the problems Napster did, with lawsuits from content owners cropping up every few days. Legitimate ones, too. Putting someone else's music on someone else's video and redistributing it is not original work. Not even close.
YouTube is starting to deal with this. "Removed for terms of service violation" messages are showing up more frequently. But that cuts into their free content supply.
So what's going up now? Marketing material. All ads, all the time. Music videos this week, with the Warner deal.
Already, more than half the YouTube screen space is third-party ads anyway. And YouTube is signed up with everybody. Watch a YouTube page load stall while "yieldmanager.com", "atmdt.com", "doubleclick.com", "insightexpressai.com", "euroclick.com" and "tacoda.net" ("an end-to-end marketing application used for analyzing customer interactions and segmenting and monetizing audience members") all are read. For one page.
YouTube is not the next Google. YouTube is the next MP3.com.
The disturbing possibility? (Score:2)
You want disturbing? I'll tell you what's disturbing. Finding out, on the same day, that the Blair Witch and Santa Claus aren't real. At least, once you've digested that bit of shock, you're better able to deal with the fact that some people will use anonymous, free venues to bl
Cynicism abounds (Score:2, Insightful)
Learning from Pron (Score:2)
While I can sympathize with people who feel tricked by seeing items posted on Youtube in a deceptive manner, it comes with no assertions that it is true. It's vast and unsupervised, and viewers need to be aware of that. Just adding a pretense that something is "authorized" or meets some kind of regulation will p
Gibson is ahead of his time (Score:5, Interesting)
This is very applicable to what is happening on YouTube now; self-made work are being fostered by these types of user generated content sites. The problem is the viewer has non idea if those self made works are sponsored by companies, or if they are just 'solo artist in a room somewhere' type of works.
So What (Score:2, Insightful)
Analogue on TV? (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone's post related this to piracy on the seas, or dumping toxis sludge when noone was around to spot them, but youTube is bound to be a bit different - this sludge isn't sludge until someone views it, at which point it can be demoted as disinformation. At that point, this slashdot posting would be as significant as a posting about a troll writing a misleading comment.
So give it 6 months and this story will only have historic significance.
all i can say is yay (Score:2)
What a shame to not have more videos of idiots lighting the
In Defense of Lonelygirl (Score:5, Interesting)
Lonelygirl is, at its heart, a series about an extremely compelling character, and her video diary makes people feel an intimate connection with her. I have to say, the series was even more enjoyable when one could believe that Bree was a real girl, seriptitiously posting her thoughts, colored by her signature humor and innocence, from her bedroom. Now that she's been "outed" as an actress, the "show" is a little more conventional, but when you're willing to suspend your disbelief, it's still wonderfully fun to watch.
In short, Lonelygirl is damn good television, except that it's not on television.
What part is Real? (Score:4, Funny)
Too much idealism (Score:2)
Its up to the creators what they want to have. Or in this case youtubers.
You can see the differences in say AOL's message boards and Craigslist's rant and rave section.
WHAT?!?!?!?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Holy shit, this really is breaking news; I mean, it's not like this has been common sense since the Internet was invented or anything.
I seriously fail to see how this is news. Entire political campaigns are built on smear advertisements (anyone remember the last election?), and the Internet doesn't even have to comply with any type of law that keeps those smear ads from being worse than they are now; is it any wonder these videos are being put online?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free Sp$$ch (Score:5, Informative)
You are free to say "Company X sucks", or "I think Product Y is cheap crap". However, to say "Product Y breaks so easily, this woman can do it without any effort" is making a supposedly factual statement. You are free to express an opinion all you want, but when you get into statements of measurable fact, you better hope the numbers back you up.
Or, to put it another way - I can go online and say "Joe's a butthead" just fine. But, if I'm gonna go saying "Joe just beat up a homeless cripple and stole his blanket", I'm opening myself up to a lawsuit if, indeed, Joe did not perform these acts, and I knew as much.
Oh, and as video is a fixed format, it would be a libel case. Slander is for transientory defamation, such as unrecorded speech - i.e., I go shouting it on the street corner, or start telling all my friends this "fact". You got it right, but I've already seen a lot of others get it wrong so far...
Re:Free Sp$$ch (Score:5, Funny)
You could, but it would hurt my feelings... ; )
mod butthead down (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)