Why is it always YouTube?

[Mulder]

Whenever someone wants to push some unlikely phenomenon or weird theory these days, they always seem to use YouTube to do it. Personally, I dislike watching substandard, patronising TV or cartoon presentations, often with some ghastly music track in the background (which I bet they're not paying royalties for!). I resent having to sit there for a fixed number of minutes being 'sold' stuff. The whole idea of the web is to interact while TV presentations are just linear 'we're telling you how it is' old style broadcasting.

I much prefer a web page with words, diagrams, tables and so on, setting out the case. That allows me to go straight to the important details and avoids the 'scene setting' which is designed to stop you seeing the obvious flaws. Maybe it's just a generational thing but I want to see the figures and the evidence and I don't like being preached at.

[chillzero]

But you don't "have to sit there". It's not like TV adverts. It's the web - go somewhere else.

I think the main reason that YouTube is becoming the centre for all info/disinfo is simply because of its accessibility. It's free, and easy to use, and reaches millions. You don't have to get your work peer reviewed, approved by editors or producers, and you don't have to pay casts, or use agents, or even pay for advertising.

It's potentially a great tool, misused by many. Therefore it's a great place for skeptics to ensure they help spread the idea of ciritical thinking and analysis, to encourage people to weigh up what they see. In the end, it may turn to our benefit.

[Mulder]

Therefore it's a great place for skeptics to ensure they help spread the idea of ciritical thinking and analysis, to encourage people to weigh up what they see.

That still means someone just sitting there being preached at, whether it's made by a skeptic or a conspiracy theorist. It's just the idiot box on a computer and an easy tool for indoctrination. I would much rather read a well constructed article with links I can explore in my own time.

[chillzero]

That still means someone just sitting there being preached at, whether it's made by a skeptic or a conspiracy theorist. It's just the idiot box on a computer and an easy tool for indoctrination. I would much rather read a well constructed article with links I can explore in my own time.

Where did I say anyone should do any preaching?

[Mulder]

Where did I say anyone should do any preaching?

You didn't - I did! It's certainly how it feels when you sit through one of these video presentations being 'sold' ideas. All sorts of questions come to mind but there is no way you can ask anything or look anything up - so just like a sermon.

[tolman]

Whenever someone wants to push some unlikely phenomenon or weird theory these days, they always seem to use YouTube to do it.
[...]
I much prefer a web page with words, diagrams, tables and so on, setting out the case.

Having seen some believer/conspiracy websites, using every colour and font they can think of, I think there's a lot to be said for people using low-res video instead.
At least your eyes don't suffer the immediate insult, and you can leave it playing while reading something more interesting, just in case it isn't complete rubbish.

What would be interesting on YouTube would be a count not only of 'number of times viewed' but also of 'number of times viewing was just abandoned part way through'.

[lost thought]

I see NASA, New Scientist and CERN have youtube accounts so it’s not all about I have a video camera what will I record to get my face famous or conspiracy junkets although they can be quite funny. I like funny pets.
The trick is to check to see if the comments have been disabled this is sure giveaway to a nutter alert and should be avoided if you value your sanity.
I also like to ge to uversity lectures on a diverse amount of subjects, just type in the search box "lecture *subject*" and get a refresher course for free. or learn something new.

[Croydon Bob]

What would be interesting on YouTube would be a count not only of 'number of times viewed' but also of 'number of times viewing was just abandoned part way through'.

Yes. I'd love to see the stats on that posted up with every clip. It would not only be a useful indication of who is paying attention to the loonies but also those idiots who put something on YouTube called "Song X by Band Y" and when you click on it, it is a "cover" by some talentless twat sitting in front of his keyboard with a badly strung guitar. I can't count the number of times I've had to watch the first 5 seconds of some clown who is so deluded he thinks it is clever to trick people into watching him and that we might actually enjoy his feeble efforts. If the stats showed "viewed 23,201; entire video viewed 00,003" that might put them off a bit.

[SorryImPsychic]

Whenever someone wants to push some unlikely phenomenon or weird theory these days, they always seem to use YouTube to do it.

Scientists view Youtube for research material.

Two famous parrots and a bevy of YouTube videos have now convinced scientists that people aren't the only ones who can groove to a musical beat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103629651

[polomint38]

Scientists view Youtube for research material.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103629651

So a couple of years ago, a neurobiologist named Aniruddh Patel was astonished when someone e-mailed him a link to a YouTube video of a sulfur-crested cockatoo named Snowball dancing to the Backstreet Boys.

So an ability to dance, but a bad taste in music.