« The standard finals-week post | Main | Remembering how to live »

May 05, 2006

Why are MySpace and YouTube popular?

Now that the semester is over, and now that I have time and space to think about stuff, I've been trying to string together three or four coherent thoughts about this "grand unified theory of YouTube and MySpace" that appeared on Slate last week.

Both YouTube and MySpace fit the textbook definition of Web 2.0, that hypothetical next-generation Internet where people contribute as easily as they consume. Even self-described late adopters like New York's Kurt Andersen recognize that that by letting everyone contribute, these sites have reached a critical mass where "a real network effect has kicked in."

But the focus on the collaborative nature of these sites has been nagging at me. Sites like Friendster and Blogger that promote sharing and friend-making have been around for years with nowhere near the mainstream success. I've got a different theory. YouTube and MySpace are runaway hits because they combine two attributes rarely found together in tech products. They're easy to use, and they don't tell you what to do.

But here's what's bugging me: So much of the stuff that turns up on both looks like crap.

Please don't get me wrong - both are treasure troves. One of the things I'm looking forward to doing over this summer is the mindless fiddling of weaving through MySpace and finding the cool bands I hadn't neard of yet (please note the following: Paramore) or the bands who I haven't heard from in a while who are now doing something completely different (please also note the following: Brandtson). And if you hack around the blogosphere AT ALL, you cannot help but notice how much that YouTube gets linked, or how insanely easy it is to link YouTube (heck, it's so easy, I've even done it).

But it doesn't change the fact that 99% of what you find on MySpace are way-too-emo kids (which I sympathize with, but it doesn't need to be reinforced) with way-too-ugly pages (which, frankly, sends me completely over the edge), and 99% of what you find on YouTube is horribly lip-synched or danced out stuff from people who think they're the next Star Wars Kid (always forgetting that Star Wars Kid never wanted to be Star Wars Kid in the first place).

I respect this about both sites: They do encourage community, and the community feeds off of itself. It is easier for me to reestablish contact with just about whoever now that I have a page on MySpace (yes, I have a page on MySpace, you are allowed to lose all respect for me now). There are so many cool tidbits you come across with YouTube (so much of the South Park stuff from the soon-to-be-legendary Scientology/Islam era is there...and people like Dean Esmay use the links, although I'm not sure that YouTube video still survives). And, because it's so easy to find people on MySpace, and it's so easy to post video and link video on a blog through YouTube, the sites are going to get used more and more.

(The above was not intended to be an obligatory trackback to Dean's World to get more traffic, but Dean's World is a wonderful blog and you should go read it now, thankee.)

But the simple question is: At what point does peer pressure begin to raise the level? How can we put pressure on such things to not just settle for crappy writing, or crappy video, but find pockets of goodness and get the goodness out there? Both sites, by allowing easy-access, open the door to a whole lot of people. But how do we then gently make a whole lot of people do a lot of things better?

I'm not sure that's quite coherent, but it's as coherent as I've been able to make the point yet, so I'm leaving it alone.

Which may yet be contributing to the problem and not the solution.

Posted by Chuck at May 5, 2006 11:53 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.chuck-pearson.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/154

Comments

The idea of creating things (just go with it, appropriate postmodern arguments aside) of quality is something that artists of all kinds have struggled with for years. But it's the way that they go through things that should never see the light of day to the great things that they are known for. Whether it be the bubble-gum pop that got Alannis Morissette to the point where Jagged Little Pill could be produced or the thousands of drafts that any halfway decent novel goes through before it gets published, it had to start somewhere.

I know this sounds like I'm defending the blogosphere, but I really despise it. I do. I used to keep a blog, but only really to share my day with people I wasn't in constant touch with. People use it as sounding boards to feel validated. They gain traffic by commenting or letting themselves be known through random browsing and thus any sparking together of brain cells they happen to put to text is instantly creditted by the validation of traffic and commentation by people similar to themselves. People want an outlet to express themselves, they want to be liked, and they're willing to work at it...without all the messiness of having to see people in the actuality or actually risk an argument that could go anywhere besides an amorphous flame war.

There are gems in the blog world. It's a great place to go for alternative journalism and for many people who create electronic art or entertainment for the internet it is a primary way to host their work and contact their fan base. Yet, by the same token, the same ability is given to a 13-year-old boy to spout (with the same apparent veneer of veracity) whatever they feel deserves merit. If there is no limit on what one can say, then they will say whatever occurs to them simply for the sake of being heard from lives in which they feel no one is listening.

Middle school is hard. High school is hard. Freshman year in college is hard. First love is hard. First break-up is hard. Coming out is hard. Restrictions are hard. Belief is hard. Faith is hard. Life, in essence, (on the younger end of the spectrum that I have experienced) is difficult. People need, in the words of Leon Uris in his fabulous novel Trinity "All most people have is fairy stories and a bit of poteen to dull the pain." People need to be validated and if they can find this basic human need fulfilled in these spaces, fine. If the stupidity bothers you as it does me, leave the space. There is no requirement that you have to submit to something like this.

By not accepting the norm, we create acceptable counter cultures. By not allowing ourselves to become addicted, we leave ourselves open for other addictions. We save time only to rush through the days of our lives to their "glorious" ends. There is no way to force quality...it comes through natural talent or through extensive training (or a combination of the two). As long as people accept the poor quality of things others create in exchange for acceptance of the own flotsam of their minds, nothing will change.

The world needs to take a long hard look at self-actualization and the idea that maybe a bit of introspection and objectivity before effectively publishing themselves could be in order. Thousands of things are rejected by publishers every year. As it is in business, so should it be within ourselves. Put it in a pen and paper journal, but don't waste the web space...come back and improve on it and have something worth being proud of.

Posted by: Mack F. at May 9, 2006 05:56 PM