<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/9155392453600861501?origin\x3dhttps://gp-rachel.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Sunday, April 29, 2007

YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?

YouTube…I wasn’t really awaken to the many possibilities YouTube held like being able to watch the thriller of latest DEXTER, CSI etc. until last year. Kinda slow I know, but there you go I’m a self-confess computer idiot.

Once again this is an argument of a definite nature determined by the word “sole” which means “being the only one” (definition courtesy of www.dictionary.reference.com). One further word to clarify, “ethics”, which is a system of moral principles. So all in all, our argument for today would be (drum roll please….). YouTube has no system of morale principles and it’s only purpose of creation was for entertainment and money-making.

I’ve decided (after much thought, mind you, cause I hate “techy” questions) to break this argument into 3 sub parts. Firstly “YouTube has no ethics”. I agree with that. As YouTube has a “free for all” concept, almost anybody can post videos of any nature onto it’s site. The videos post can contain materials of any gene, however offensive they may be. Usually they are only sieved out when users lodge a complaint. So it is safe to say that when users post their videos online, they are not constricted by a system of morale principals they have to adhere to.

Secondly, “YouTube was created for the sole purpose of entertainment”. I cannot agree with that. The two of the three founders of Youtube only reportedly sai that YOuTube was created to enable videos to be shared online, there was no specification as to whether these videos were intended to be only of entertainment values. To back that up, although currently majority of the videos on the YouTube scene are that of entertainment value, however more and more videos of different genres have appeared. An excellent example would be the posting of videos demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and use an inhaler, by a government funded clinic in Builth in Wales, UK. That is posting for as medical reason.

Thirdly (lastly too, thank god!), “YouTube was created for the sole purpose of money”, again not true. YouTube is a non-profit orietntated project. It was created so videos could shared and no profit is earned when the public download or upload videos. The only way YouTube has been sustaining itself is true the advertisments other compnaies such as google,choosesto feature on it’s site. However, advertisments only came in after the sudden pupularity of YouTube. During it’s creation process, no one expected the impact YouTube would make therefore it is impossible to conclude that profits were taken into account during the creation process. And I hereby end my argument!!


4:42 AM