The Politics of Vlogging | [CC]

The Politics of Vlogging | [CC]

– Francis Ford Coppola, you
know his quote that one day, you know, the next Hollywood
masterpiece would be made by a 10 year old girl with
her video, with her dad’s video camera, right? And, I think we all know
that she’s a video blogger, right, and behind her are
gonna be a thousand more and then a million more
just like her and they will change the world. So, Hollywood, fuck them. They can’t say anymore,
you can, you can’t. We get to say. How ’bout all of us can do it. Why not? Why does it have to be just this person and not that person? Why not all of us? That’s what’s cool about video on a blog. – So, when I was in 7th
grade the iPhone came out and this was a really big deal. I remember watching the demo by Steve Jobs in a math class that day. Somehow the teacher had gotten
a recording of it online and he played it back for us
instead of teaching us math. That’s how big a deal it
was and I thought it was a particularly big deal
because I was a vlogger at the time. – Hello there, this is Shark Jaw. I’m gonna start a vlog.
Vee-log, vlog, video log. It’s fun to say! Vlog, vlog, vlog! and I’m gonna do like questions, comments, stuff like that and so yeah. – Why my parents thought
it was a good idea to give an 11 year old a laptop
with a camera on it is just absolutely beyond
me, but aside from that, I mean I was very fortunate
to have access to this tool because I got to watch all
these people on the internet, people from all over the world
you know, who I would never have otherwise been exposed
to if I were just hangin’ out in my Los Angeles suburb, right. – No one in the world can do what I do. – You know, when I was 11
years old I was watching tons of YouTube videos and Flash
animations and just lots of, lots of internet video. And, as you do when
you’re a kid you pick up a lot of ideas about the world
through the media you consume and I’ve been sort of looking
back and trying to examine like, what did I learn
from that period of time? The iPhone was just one
stepping stone towards a world where everyone had a
camera, everyone had a voice, right, and this idea was
like exciting, it was invigorating, you know. I thought at age 11, you
know, this is a future that I wanna work towards,
a world where media is democratized. In many ways the vision
that we had back then has been realized, right? Like, everyone does have a camera. Everyone does have a voice, the potential to be seen or heard by
millions of people online. That is, that’s reality. But, like what of it, you know? I thought it was gonna
be sunshine and rainbows. I thought it was gonna
be utopia, you know. But, that’s not what we have. What we have is Donald Trump
and the post-truth problem. We have media companies
consolidating and lobbying against that neutrality,
Facebook and the whole digital advertising industry
has become an international propaganda factor. We all have access to tools
for creative expression and so do Nazis. So, it’s like, that’s
scary, that’s scary and it’s not what I expected. Where did we get this idea
that technology was gonna bring about soucial justice? You know, who were the first vloggers? Like, who were the people who
I was watching back in 2007? I need to understand,
you know, how… how I got here? Like, what happened along the way? So, what I did was I
went back and I looked into the history of the vlog and I learned some really interesting things. So, one of the things I
discovered is that there was this one community of video
bloggers that was founded in 2004 by two roommates,
Peter Van Dyke and Jay Dedman. So, I went back and I
read a lot of these posts and I looked into the
people who wrote those posts and what I found is that
a lotta those people were involved in public access TV. So, “public access,” what is public access? You might know it from
like, Wayne’s World, right? A public access TV station
is one where any citizen can show up, get
some training on professional video tools and then broadcast
themselves on real live TV. Public access is an idea that
came out of the ’70s, right. This is a time when you’ve
got lots of social upheaval. We’ve got civil rights and
anti-war and environmentalist and feminist movements
happening, lots and lots of stuff going on and you’ve got
lots of Americans saying, yo, what they show on TV
does not represent our views. If only we could express
our views the world would be a better place,
right, because we’d be able to convince people of our belief systems and change the world, right. Now, we talk a lot in media
discourse about the idea of representation and how important it is, that the power to depict
reality is kinda the power to create reality. So, the proposed solution was
to just give people access to TV and that is public access. – I mean, this is the old
idea of the, of the medium being the message and so on.
Attitudes about, what is the nature of love and
life and how one behaves and the kinds of meanings and
values that one associates with being an American and so forth. All of these are implicit
in most all films made. But, if you have in cassettes
and cable distribution literally hundreds and thousands
of different expressions from hundreds and thousands
of different people– you know, artists– a multiplicity
of voices on about what constitutes reality, you’re
gonna find an enormous change in the political
and economic structure of the entire country. – The thing is that most of
the really interesting oddballs in this world have been
filtered out of most media. So, you don’t really get the
really interesting things. – So, that clip was
taken from a conversation that one of my favorite media
theorists, Gene Youngblood had with George Lucas. They’re talking about the state of media and the film industry and
Gene Youngblood is proposing this radical vision, right,
that if everyone has access to share their messages that
you will change the world at its root. This is the ideology of
public access and it comes from a specific time and place. Many of the central figures
in the early history of video blogging shared this vision. They were people who had
training with professional video making tools who wanted
to share those with the world. They were fighting a
cultural battle and they saw the internet as this new front. So, the vlog practice,
the vlog genre or movement or whatever you wanna call
it, it inherits these values of anti-commercialism,
of freedom of expression, the importance of like fair
use and the First Amendment. You know, if you think
about the period from which vlogging emerged, right,
it’s the Bush years, right? It’s my childhood. It’s post-9/11 Muslim hysteria. It’s Rush Limbaugh and
Bill O’Reilly and people– these conservative
commentators through Fox News and other outlets who dominated American political discourse. It’s a world where corporate
media is flourishing. – It has been difficult for
the liberal talk radio people to get any traction in the
U.S.A. and round the country right wing yackers continue to dominate. – The number one show
that dominates cable news, The O’Reilly Factor. – And, the vloggers look at
that and they basically say, like, “that’s click bait!” Like, that’s bad for society! That’s like, it’s a company,
a commercial news company drumming up fear for the sake
of advertising dollars, right. A lof of them even looked at
Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart as you know, not super good
because they were still corporate media, like they were
still for profit television. – It’s like people only do
things because they get paid and that’s just really sad. – So, they said, let’s
do anti-commercial media on the internet. By 2004, 2005, around
that time, the conditions are finally there for
them to start doing that on a larger scale than they ever had. By that time most computers
came preloaded with like, Windows Movie Maker or
iMovie, some sort of video editing software and
broadband internet in 2005 finally overtook dial up in
the U.S. internet market. So, the time is perfect
between 2004 and 2005, to make the internet a new
front in the sort of cultural battle of media representation. In 2005, the very first internet
video convention was held. It was called Vloggercon
out in New York at NYU’s interactive telecommunications
program and there were panels and discussions about
all these things, right. About, about anti-commercialism,
about the tools and techniques that you would
use to make video online. There were conversations
about the future of media and what it would look like. – So, the cinema of the 21st
century doesn’t look like movies in theaters. What it looks like is
platforms where lots of people can come in and participate using video. In other words, as a film
maker, you don’t just make one linear 90 minute story,
rather, you create a space that can live and explore
the topics you’re interested [in] over a period of time. – Like, what he just described
is a YouTube channel, right. This is contemporary story telling through social media profiles. What he’s calling the future
of cinema is just our present. I mean, it’s hard to
overstate the importance of this group in the
history of online video. Like, the founders of Blip.TV
and Vimeo were both involved, I’m fairly certain that
Ze Frank read those posts, the folks who worked on
Rocketboom, I mean, so many of the early kinda
greats of internet video came from that space. So, it’s no wonder why
these politics of like, freedom of expression and
anti-commercialism, right, that these start to permeate the culture of vlogging early on. – If you could basically
get paid to do what you’re talking about, would you want that? – This is something
that I was kind of like throwing out to you
guys because it’s like, it’s a weird thing for
me to feel like someone’s gonna pay me to make videos of my friends. Like, who is gonna pay me to do that? Do I want someone to pay me to do that? – Over time that culture
has changed drastically. Anti-commercialism is really not part of the conversation anymore. I mean, vlogging is an
industry, it’s a career. It’s the number one career
desired by American teenagers. Like, think about that. Like more than athlete
or astronaut, right, like YouTuber, that’s the career
that kids want nowadays. – You know, I wanna point out
that part of what makes this community interesting and
part of what makes these videos so powerful is
that they’re very personal and they’re comin’ from
the artist and I think if you start sellin’
out editorial integrity in order to make short term cash, it will be long term negative. – You know, I think it’s
important that we sort of remind ourselves every once
in a while that vlogging isn’t just a job. It’s a tool you can use for
yourself, for your family, for your city, right. Like, you can make vlogs for
reasons other than building an audience on YouTube. That’s basically what
I grew up believing in and knowing that that has
that very specific history is interesting and cool to me. I kinda get to think about this
in a more informed way now. – There is always a challenge of craft. Those who decide not to screw around, but to develop their
craftsmanship as how they approach these things, they
bake ideas and social norms into the genre that are
very, very hard, even for commercial media, to pull out. – You know, this is still
such a beautiful idea to me. You know, the idea that every
person should have a voice, that everyone should you
know, be able to share their view of the world and
I’m very glad that people who believe in equality of race and gender and sexuality and
geography, that we now have the opportunity to have
that perspective shared. But, so do Nazis, right?!? Like, that’s the problem. When you give everyone cameras
you’re giving Nazis cameras. So, this is a major problem, right? Another problem is that the
ability to create a message is not the same thing as the
ability to share a message. Like, we can share messages,
but we don’t necessarily have access to an audience. The distribution of media
messages is controlled by websites like Facebook and
Google and YouTube, right. They use curation algorithms
that cater to certain people’s interests and those
algorithms are designed to keep people watching
advertisements, right. It’s not to share messages
equally, to have a positive media space, it’s to serve the bottom line of these companies. Media has been democratized
and commercialized at the same time. This is the problem. I think the first step towards
like proposing solutions for how to confront the
challenges of our time is to look at our history. Look at, like really
examine ourselves and our relationship with media. How do we use it, right? What kind of messages are we receiving and how do we interact
with those messages? For me, that means
studying YouTube, studying the media that informed
who I am today, you know. I study YouTube because it’s my history and it’s our history. It’s the history of growing
up thinking technology was gonna bring about
utopia and realizing, nope, that’s not, that’s not how that works. So, yeah. – Really, I personally
have never experienced anything like this. I mean, and I got to always
keep telling things to myself like, this is a really
special time, you know. Be aware, be aware, be aware
’cause like in 10 years I’ll be like have some stupid
job and I’ll hate my life and I’ll remember this day, you know. – So, that’s what I have to say. My name’s Anthony D’Angelo. My Twitter is @coolwebfriend. My website is If you have any questions I will be answering comments below. Thank you, thank you,
thank you for watching. Good bye. – You know, the cool thing
about video blogging, it can be as punk rock as
we want it to be, right. I’m here in my house with my
computer and my whiteboard and whatever and I’m makin’ stuff up and I’m puttin’ it on the internet. And, you can’t do shit about that. [Sex Pistols – Anarchy in the UK] – I make a rather modest proposal that, that world peace, human liberty
and a healthy environment can only be achieved through
a communications revolution.

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

30 thoughts on “The Politics of Vlogging | [CC]”

  • great video 🙂 🖙 "media has been democratized and commercialized at the same time, this is the problem" totally agree w/the general sentiment here, but imma get nit picky ^__^ ( not to be jerk, but rather to make a distinction i think is key to solving this problem …&& i don't think u'll disagree ). i don't think the issue is that democratization+commercialization has happened at the same time, the cluster fuck we're in has more to do w/how it happened (ie. the way YouTube is doing it like u addressed @11:51 ). the specific issue is the platforms themselves ( yes, people suck, that's also an issue… but the platforms make people worse, so lets hone in on that ). social media is a great idea it's just been implemented very poorly, not b/c the folks working at YouTube or Facebook suck, but rather b/c it's a very hard thing to do right ( there's v little precedence for it after all ). the way these new "democratic" media platforms are designed/developed, owned, operated ( [un]regulated ) + controlled are the root causes to the effect u're describing. the web ( as a meta-platform ) has much more potential for democratizing+commercializing culture && i think what we need to do now is really start to break down the platform problem in more detail. For example: I wonder what kind of conversation we would be having if the way YouTube's algorithm worked was made more transparent/clear to users? or if users could more directly control the algorithm ( rather than strictly indirectly via the way they use the platform )? I wonder what it be like if YouTube was open-source? If it didn't reside on centralized servers but existed in a more distributed way (bittorrent, WebRTC, blockchain, etc)? …of course a big part (&& it's only a part) of the reason YouTube doesn't work this way is b/c of it's business model, but what if YouTube was monetized differently? what if the commercialization of this democratization looked more like the way Patreon does it? or maybe something like what coin-hive was trying to do ( the way it was used was problematic, but it was a beautiful && radical vision of a web commercialized independent of ads )? There's plenty of ideas, speculative software + art projects + academic experiments + writing for us to borrow from to build platforms that democratize culture in commercially sustainable ways, but that can only happen if we focus the conversation on the shortcomings/failures of the current platforms && incite a desire/demand in the general public for something better.

  • Great video Anthony. I have some thoughts.

    The two problems you lay out as in the way of utopia are:
    1) Nazis have cameras.
    2) Platforms commercialized when democratized

    In regard to the first : It seems to me, that in the long run, the political messages that will win out on a thoroughly democratized platform(see response to #2) are the ones that are most persuasive to the psychologically average person. Therefore Nazis with cameras are only a problem if Nazi messages are the most persuasive to said person. As a Non-Nazi who believes the psychologically average person will over time come to find the most morally virtuous ideas as the most persuasive, I don't believe this to be the case, but I suppose time will tell. Either way, no one said the journey to the utopia wouldn't have detours. When everyone has a steering wheel, it's inevitable.

    In regard to the second : The only reason that "commercialization" as you call it is a problem is that structuring recommendations to maximize ad revenue introduces impurities in the democratization of the platform. you could structure a platform to be thoroughly democratic without impurities and the ability for the best to rise to the top would not be inhibited by the existence of ads. More democratic and/or functionally empowering platforms have the same leverage over lesser platforms that the internet has over lesser mediums. The more democratic the platform becomes the more power people have to further democratize it. eventually a utopian platform will be achieved which will then have the leverage to spread utopia out to other parts of society.

  • Thank you for sharing your thoughts and structuring your research in such a concise and clear way! I'm not sure I have any questions, I'm largely done with watching vlogs as a pastime and am clueless as to what is happening in the "new media world", but your perspective is always so insightful. Just, thank you.

  • I don't suppose you ever watched the Adam Curtis Documentary " All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace" or perhaps read the poem of the same name? The Poem announces the Utopian Ideal & the Documentary tells the story (amongst overs), of how that Ideal was expressed. Here's an edit some one did of the more relevant clips….
    The documentary itself is about the myth of the self regulating system & arguably, Adam Curtis's work in general tends to be the story of unintended consequence. Anyways, just thought you might be interested. Thanks for the always interesting video's.

  • Oh man I'm always so Psyched when I see you've uploaded something, and this Did Not Disappoint. As a fledgling academic (gender studies and social justice education), I adore the way you engage with new media as a thing to be Studied and thought about beyond a surface-level "well I use it" sort of way. Tbh I'm gonna rewatch this and see if I have something this and come back with more specific comments and questions than just "wow I like you a lot you make Good Stuff" (but also wow I like you a lot, and you do make Good Stuff)

  • Well done, sir. Truly reminded me of all my hopes and dreams for online video in the early days.

    I wonder, though, when you mentioned that what happened was the democratization and commercialization of online video at the same time, is there a better way? How do you manage the incredibly ridiculous amount of content being uploaded all the time? How do you organize it? How do you prop certain things up as important?

    Obviously the way YouTube and all social media does it is simply to organize a way to get eyeballs. How can they bring in the most people? They create algorithms that try to organize everything for the best experience for the user so they stick around as long as possible.

    This leads to clickbait and lots of gross things on the internet but it also seems to be the most amoral and apolitical you can possibly be because it's about money. Money is the thing outside of any other agenda people may have that guides all of this.

    I realize as I type that I'm going to sound like a libertarian, which I'm not. But really, is there a better way to organize all of this? I don't think I'd want a government doing it. I wouldn't want some small group to be given the power to deem things worthy.

    I guess the only way to truly achieve the media Utopia we were hoping for 15 or 20 years ago would be if they entire public demanded ad free content that was truly an alternative to commercialized media. People shedding light on issues that need addressing locally. Words and images that are used for the betterment of society. Fictional content that's truly personal expression and not from a Hollywood studio. But the truth is that hasn't happened because that's not what the public wants.

    Maybe someday that's what they'll want. But not now. Maybe the best we can do is just keep making the things we want to exist in the world. Try to avoid common YouTuber pitfalls. (I'm certainly guilty of "selling out" and I'll probably do it again cuz I have a daughter. But I can still do whatever else I want to.) And maybe…. we can do a better job of organizing. I don't know what that means but maybe we can find like minded folk and team up and create strength in numbers. Figure out what our common goals are for this online world and all try to achieve it together. I think there's room for many causes, commercial and otherwise, on this crazy mixed up information super highway.

    I dunno what I'm saying exactly. But I liked this video and want to see more of it and more thoughtful people like yourself thrive in this place.

    Craig out

  • Dude this was rad. Super interesting and a lot of stuff I didn’t know and didn’t think about thanks. Just discovered you through wheezywaiter and looking forward to watching Fillmore from you.

  • anthony this is fantastic.

    it is also freaking fascinating on a personal level to see where my own individual life on the internet/vlogging sphere fits into all of this.

    and, it is adorable that your candence/delivery of words has barely changed since 7th grade.

  • Great video as always. I always get a deeper understanding of the history of online video when I watch you. My question, I guess, is about morality. You mention that it's bad to give a voice to Nazis. Which, I agree with. But then does that mean that online video has been a net negative or a net positive? Money certainly corrupted it. Websites can't really scale properly to deal with EVERYONE having a YouTube channel. So is that good or bad? I don't know if I have a great answer. I still think that it's good overall, but we need to be very upfront by the bad that it has generated.

  • Just rewatched this because I selected it as the 4th best video uploaded to YouTube for the annual list I make. I keep thinking about the ideas you bring up here. I'm no closer to solutions, but I'm glad you made my mind swim with thoughts. Thanks!

  • I think it is interesting to think about views and attention as a currency. Not just today, but what that will look like in the future.

  • feel like you need to do a podcast. a pleasant voice that would lend itself well to the medium, also you have things to say

  • This was awesome! I think in a way the democratisation of information online is limited by the fact that 93% of regular Internet users are in the top 20% wealthiest people on Earth, according to the World Bank? And I think the 'studying of history' approach is a bit individualistic? Like maybe a collective approach might be more fruitful? (YouTuber Trade Union…)

  • This was amazing and now I am subscribed to you.This was well-structured, well-edited, and makes me realize why I keep seeing my friends retweet you.

  • Although I experience a lot of the problems you brought up, I have to say when I first discovered YouTube in 2007 I thought my grandparents had already fixed the whole nazi problem before I was born.

  • – – – – – I'm late, though thankfully that these spaces exist over time until the infrastructure maintaining them is no longer maintained – nothing lasts forever. (Also with figuring out how to life on my part – hopefully I’m able to write/speak my ideas more time-sufficiently generally – my apologies for possible-future slow response(s)).

    – – – – – Anyways,
    – – – – – I wanted to reference and discuss a few things, to start Electric Didact’s “Fascism Is a Technology” (Also quick note, there’s a link to that following this quote for convenience, even if the formatting of this is a bit awkward on my part admittedly; anyways-) “…. Make no mistake, fascism is a technology, in the same sense as is a barricade or a molotov cocktail, it’s a makeshift composite of pre-existing signs and objects and theories designed to direct energy and transform other objects. This machine systematically trivializes logical distinctions between what are fundamentally incompatible positions to synthesize myth. And it does this by construing a communicative scheme that over legitimizes and mobilizes white male subjectivity. So fascism can thus without qualms claim that its views are free of racism and then invoke the hashtag “all lives matter” to blame the victims of police brutality for their own deaths, or criticize those supporting immigrants and minorities but not quote “everyday americans.” Fascism can’t without qualm denigrate feminists as waging a war on men while literally cheering when their own candidate literally acknowledges and defends his own misogyny, harassment, and sexual assault. Fascism can without qualms attack what they call PC culture in schools and universities basting the idea of safe spaces while creating a list of professors they claim are shoving leftist ideas down students throats.
    – – – – – “Ultimately the fascist mode of myth is about subsuming, transforming, and redeploying signs and narratives in spite of they’re being totally incommensurate with each other in order to mobilize power in the register of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and fatality. “It would be so much easier, for us,” Eco concludes, “if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz! I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares!” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances.” So how do we begin to uncover fascism?
    – – – – – “Well I believe one step we can take is to insist on discriminating among signs. When fascism adopts the narrative of the truly oppressed as its own myth, our work should involve pointing out the incommensurability of those signs, and explaining why when fascism promotes action fueled by hate and fear and anger our work should involve critically unravelling and examining those emotions, both in our opponents and in ourselves. Because it’s certain Ur-Fascism stirs among us, and all it takes is saying nothing to become its agent. If fascism is a technology then it’s up to us to dismantle it, hoverer we can.”
    Fascism Is a Technology
    By Electric Didact, Length 9:24
    – – – – – I assumed this quote would be smaller, but a lot of gripping writing by them; and so I wanted to highlight that last thought about how “Ur-Fascism stirs among us” and explore with this comment the importance considering obscure fascisms for which may underlie parallel to what we perceive as blatant or obvious fascism like Trump, Naizs, and more as Electric Didact discussed.

    – – – – – Which I have to point out that and recommend Extra Credits who are tackling many of these from alienation, isolation, anxiety, and more with especially their science fiction series that explores humanity and our relationship to emerging technologies and changing society; plus James also does in depth book club-lecture discussions of the episodes on their Twitch channel. I’ll link them all because they’re great, though indeed they usually go for an hour or two so the length stacks which I’ll also include for reference:
    Totals, All Episodes=1:53:35 and Streams=13:00:00 roughly
    Extra Sci Fi, Playlist:
    William Gibson: The Gernsback Continuum – Semiotic Ghosts – #8, 9 minutes
    [Talking] Extra Sci Fi with James & David, 1 hour
    William Gibson: The Belonging Kind – Extra Sci Fi – #9, 8 minutes
    [Talking] Extra Sci Fi – William Gibson: The Belonging Kind, 3 hours
    The Canals of Mars – Eye of the Beholder – Extra Sci Fi #10, 12 minutes
    [Talking] The Canals of Mars – Eye of the Beholder – Extra Sci Fi #10, 3 hours
    The Martian Chronicles – A Dying Race – Extra Sci Fi – #11, 9 minutes
    [Talking] Extra Sci Fi with James & David (A Dying Race, Sci Fi #11), 2 hours
    The Martian Chronicles – Too Human – Extra Sci Fi – #12, 7 minutes
    [Talking] Extra Sci Fi with James & David (Too Human), 2 hours
    The Martian Chronicles – The New Martians – Extra Sci Fi – #13, 7 minutes
    [Talking] Extra Sci Fi with James & David (The New Martians), 1 hour
    The History of Sci Fi – Jules Verne – Extra Sci Fi – #1 (2.0), 9 minutes
    [Talking] Extra Sci Fi with James & David (The History of Sci Fi), 1 hour

    – – – – – And I wanted to ask, how are we aware of fascism when it tries to use us– to make clear– that us binging us who are critically minded, vigilant of fascism, critical empathy, and employ cognitive exercise (PBS Idea Channel fan here, mentioning for additional clarity and point): Even so, how subscetiple to various kinds of fascism are we?
    – – – – – Hm, I guess I’m getting a bit Tolkien here, with the thought that evil is something that is ever present, but “What is Evil?” “For Hannah Arendt, a German-Jewish philosopher, “evil is not always as simple as an overriding desire to do no good.” Rather, Arendt chooses to focus her discussion of evil on this man: Adolf Eichmann. Put on trial for numerous horrors, Eichmann was found guilty of crimes against humanity, especially against the Jewish people, for overseeing the trains that transported people to Nazi death camps. On May 31, 1962, he was hanged. Arendt traveled to Jerusalem to cover the Eichmann trial. She expected to encounter a cold calculating monster, a man who revealed in his malicious deeds. Instead what she found was something far more shocking. Eichmann was an altogether innocuous and seemingly normal little man– in some sense, he was a cliche, a stereotypical bureaucrat, a sort of sleepwalker in life, a person who refused to comprehend the weight of his crimes. Eichmann wasn’t afflicted with an overriding sense of maliciousness. Instead, what Arendt found was a man that was thoughtless, that never stopped to put himself in someone else’s shoes, that refused to think from another’s perspective. She found someone with an unquestioning sense of obligation to authority, who all his life he had been a follower, a person eager to fit in and be led. He suffered from blind allegiance and a complete self-deception about the morality of his actions. … she encountered the banality of evil, an everyday sort of evil: a bureaucrat eager to do his job – one who lacked empathy or perspective. … blindly following orders from another person.”
    What Is Evil? – 8 Bit Philosophy
    By Wisecrack, 3 minutes

  • i've been thinking lately about how much the idea of 'selling out' has gone away these past years. it's not completely gone, of course, but we've gone from people throwing riots in the comments whenever their favorite channel got a sponsor to people rioting against youtube for the adpocalypse. anyway i just found your video through Philosophy Tube and I'm loving your work!

  • this shit just makes me so sad…even 5 years ago youtube was so different (at least to me lol) but now it seems like literally everyone has a youtube channel and really good channels are getting lost. and it is just so crazyyyy to see little kids want to be youtube stars and making their own videos and stuff, seeing it as an occupation, not a hobby