YouTube through the Lens of Diffusion Theory

 

YouTube is an extremely popular platform nowadays to make and share content. Now, there is no other place to share a video. And for many younger people, platforms like YouTube and Twitch is all one needs to be entertained. No need for cable television. Let's think about the rise of YouTube using Diffusion Theory.

Why did it catch on? YouTube officially launched in 2005 with around 30,000 visitors per day. I'd say, what attracted the early adopters would be just the novelty and convenience of a platform like YouTube. Early channels like the Angry Video Game Nerd and RoosterTeeth were already fairly well-know content creators before YouTube, uploading videos to their own personal sites. Moving to YouTube, a universal platform, marked the spark of experimental phase. The introduction of multi channel networks showed the uptake into the early majority. Now, would be the time bigger companies saw the marketing opportunities of, and so making a profit off of YouTube content emerged. Why did this happen later? Safe bets are what businesses usually take, so it would take a little while before they would invest in YouTube with marketing. As the late majority would come in, YouTube would mature. 

Information Used

The Age of AI

To me it seems like artificial intelligence is getting more and more advanced with each passing year. That excitement for what the future has in store but also worry for how AI could be abused. It is interesting to think about how China and the United States are essentially rival in this new age. China has a much larger market of consumers than we do which means they have more people to test with and more room to grow their technology. One of the most frightening things to come from China would be their new social credit score system. AI can keep watch over citizens's actions in all places whether it be public or online. Things like facial recognition can be used to prevent services to individuals with low scores. It terrifies me that there is a place on earth that has a system like this, like competition to see who can agree with the government the most, with real world penalties.

What about our own country? What about the United States? What are some of the pros and cons of AI in our own economy? To me, I see a lot of parallel of the advancement of AI to the industrial revolution of the 19th century. Both the pros and the cons. Good production skyrocketed and many technological advancements happened because of it. However at the same time, many lower class people lost their jobs and livelihoods because of all the rapid advancements in production. There was a reason "rage against the machine" was something that happened. On top of that, these advances and technology were used because wealthier people wanted to cut costs and maximize profit, with no care for the average worker. And all those mirror that cons of advancing AI. Business owners will unitize new technologies so that they can pay less people and produce the same, if not more, goods. The film used the trucking business as an example of this already happening. However, despite all these woes, over a century later, do we wish the industrial revolution never happened? Of course not. Although the progress was painful, it was still progress. What saved the average workers were government legislations and labor laws. Things like minimum wage, welfare, and labor unions were formed to protect workers from mistreatment. I think in order to avoid the worst case scenario of a future with AI, there needs to be some new laws that limit AI and protect us.

Video: IN THE AGE OF AI  

Steven Crowder Banned from Youtube

 

It came to my attention very recently that Steven Crowder once again had his YouTube partnership pulled from the platform. This was not the first time this has happened. Last time they were banned from uploading, it was because their conflict with the other political YouTube channel, Vox. Nearly everyone on the internet banded to together to criticize the decision. But now, it has happened again.

This brings up the discussion of both Prior Restraints vs Subsequent Punishments and whether a cyber space platform, such as as YouTube should be considered a "Public Accommodation." What's interesting to me is that YouTube will not provide which videos caused the decision according to The Verge.

The Verge

Speech Theories

Among all the speech theories that were presented to me, the first one to stand out and catch my attention would be "Stable Change" theory. This theory dictates that alienated citizens and minorities should be given a means to voice their complaints and opinions with no risk to their life or well being. To me, this falls directly in line with value of majority rules and minority rights. Democracy can be many different things, each with its own pros and cons. However, one thing a democracy should definitely not be is a mob rule. That would be an environment where unpopular opinions get snuffed out, everyone is breaded to be the same, and the majority would operate like a hive mind. That is why this theory is so important. It promotes new and different ideas and people. It promotes the very idea of a progressive society. What would we have if there were no minority rights? Perhaps we could have a government similar to "1984."

This is why I feel that this is the most significant speech theory to our government, or at least the most significant theory to me. The freedom of expression is important. There are multiple places in the Constitution where it is mentioned, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom to petition the government. Disagreement and opposing opinions are a healthy thing for a country. That is what leads to a better future. 

The Supreme Court

One of the first things that stood out to me when watching the videos about the supreme court was just leaning about the statistics, facts like how the court receives over a hundred cases a week. And so the justices must pick and choose which ones to fully review. However, it was also inspiring to learn that every petition is treated with the same amount of weight and importance. Even people in prison can write a petition to the supreme court. Another interesting point to bring up would be how every decision the court make will bind the court in the future, as they must continue to abide by the principles of their decisions. Like what one justice described, "It's like walking in a sidewalk of wet cement." Every step you take has permanent consequences.

Overall, I very much just enjoyed learning about the Supreme Court, what they do, and how they do it. Before, I mostly assumed that the Supreme Court was just like lower courts in the states, but for more important matters that involve the government itself. Now I know that it is more like a court of appeals that reviews whether a law or decision is constitution through petitions.

Sources:
Part I
Part II