What YouTube’s removal of the dislike button could mean for the future of the public sphere…

Earlier this month, YouTube officially removed the dislike counter on every video on their platform. The dislike button will still be active, but the number of dislikes on a video will be private, only to be viewed by the creator through the YouTube analytics tab. YouTube’s publicly stated reasoning for this change was the result of an experiment performed back in March of 2021. “…we experimented with the dislike button to see whether or not changes could help better protect our creators from harassment, and reduce dislike attacks — where people work to drive up the number of dislikes on a creator’s videos” From the experiment they concluded that, “they [creators] were less likely to target a video’s dislike button to drive up the count. In short, our experiment data showed a reduction in dislike attacking behavior.” Matt Koval, head creator liaison at YouTube, released a video addressing the change, explaining that the removal of the dislike counter was necessary to combat creator harassment since, “half of YouTube’s mission is to give everyone a voice”. But it’s statements like that, that a majority of the YouTube community feels that the company’s decision was both tone-deaf and inauthentic.

Matt Koval, Head Creator Liaison at YouTube, explains the change in his announcement video

YouTube claims that this meant to help out the smaller creators, but a quick glance at the comment section on Matt Koval’s announcement video reveals that almost every creator, regardless of audience size, is against this change… everyone except for the most powerful. The majority of YouTube videos that have a massive ratio of dislikes to likes tend to be mega corporations and brands, political press conferences and news networks, and somewhat ironically, YouTube’s own official content. In fact, the most disliked video on the platform to date was YouTube Rewind 2018.

It is key to remember that the reactionary functions on a YouTube video (the comment section and like/dislike buttons), are a form of the public sphere; a space that can be metaphysical, where people can come together and exchange options and ideas. Any comment section or online forum is a public sphere, but by removing the dislike button, YouTube is removing a tool of expression that helps the public communicate in this metaphysical sphere. By limiting access within this sphere, we have less of an authentic understanding of public opinion. Matt Koval briefly stated towards the end of his announcement video that many other platforms don’t even have a dislike button, therefor we’ll probably all get used to this change in no time. Right?

Well, take a look a video on Instagram that a majority of viewers didn’t enjoy. It’s very likely that the top pinned comments from users that read something along the line of “use me as the dislike button”, are overwhelmed with upvotes. When in doubt, we want our opinions to be heard, so we’ll always find ways to communicate that within the public sphere. I predict that it won’t be long before pinned comments take the place of the dislike button, and YouTube either has to reassess their decision to remove the dislike counter, or decide to disable comments altogether.

Ozy Media in more hot water amid two federal investigations

Image Courtesy of OZY Media

For the last couple months, Ozy Media has been the center of a variety of scandals relating to the validity of their business practices and claims. The digital entertainment company was founded in 2013 by Samir Rao. The aim of Ozy media was to cover trends and topics in entertainment that were both appealing to a young adult demographic, as well as new and fresh in terms of coverage. Their varied programming includes podcasts, digital courses, and some Emmy Award-winning TV shows. Though, it was not their content that landed them in hot water, but rather false claims to investors that garnered financial support under false pretenses. It was a series of articles by The New York Times that began with reporting that Rao was falsely claiming to be a YouTube executive. His impersonation was meant to convince investors that Ozy media was very successful on YouTube, having a wide, dedicated fanbase on the platform.

This was followed by false claims made by Ozy’s co-founder and producer for The Carlos Watson Show; Carlos Watson claimed that the show was scheduled to air on A&E, when in fact, no such agreement has ever been made by the network. After that, a 2019 interview with Watson resurfaced, where he had claimed that celebrities, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne, were investors in Ozy Media. Another lie that was publicly debunked by the Osbourne family as reported by CNBC. What could be described as a slow-motion car crash eventually caused Ozy’s investors, including one of their chairmen, Marc Lasry, as well as key investor, SV Angel, to give up their shares and step away from the company. BBC anchor, Katty Kay, who had worked for Ozy for the last year had also decided to resign.

“Calling Ozy Media a Dumpster Fire is an Insult to Dumpsters and Fires”

Colby Hall- Mediaite Founding Editor

With the number of reports regarding Ozy’s deception stacking up, both the Securities Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have began investigating for more instances of Fraud. What they uncover could potentially lead to criminal charges. In the meantime, this is an important reminder that nothing ruins the truth like stretching it. Ozy Media was more focused on the perception of success, rather than taking the steps to achieve it. The amount of time that was spent fabricating the lies making Ozy Media seem popular among their demographic, could have actually been spent doing market research to understand the audience that they claimed to have.

Tiktok App usage surpasses Instagram and Snapchat for users aged 12 – 17 this year, according to new survey

instagram-tiktok-snapchat
image via https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/20/igtv-vs-tiktok-vs-snapchat/

Forrester Research has released data from their 2021 Forrester Analytics Consumer Technographics® US Youth Survey and the results are interesting as they vary greatly from their 2020 results.

For this survey, the company Forrester collected 4,602 online surveys of U.S. youth aged 12 to 17 years old. In 2020, Forrester’s research showed in their poll group Gen Z Youth (12 – 17), 50% used Tiktok weekly, 54% used Snapchat weekly and 61% used Instagram weekly. A year later, these percentages have shifted. While Snapchat usage stayed the same at 54%, Tiktok rose 13 points to 63% while Instagram took a 4 point ding to 57%.

Through further market research, Forrester strived to find why TikTok had such a sudden increase. They asked parents in their ConsumerVoices Online Research Community to ask their 12 – 17-year-old children why they enjoy using Tiktok. Many of the responses suggested:

Entertainment Value: Many kids used the words “fun” or “funny” when describing the content on the platform, saying videos there were funnier.

Short Watch Time: Many youth users enjoy the easy, scroll ability and bite-sized clips that their Tiktok FYPs have to offer.

A Place to Express Themselves: Many respondents enjoyed the ability to positively express themselves through the platform, like through dances.

Forrester also notes that while TikTok is a popular social media platform with Gen Z Youth, it is not the most popular. In the same survey, 72% of U.S. Youth respondents said they use Youtube at least weekly. – which is a 3 percent increase from the 2020 survey.

As future media professionals, this information like this is extremely important to our field of work. Knowing what media certain age groups are using daily can help us cater our content for them.

Proulx, Mike. “Weekly Usage Of TikTok Surpasses Instagram Among US Gen Z Youth” 18, November 2021. Forrester Research. https://www.forrester.com/blogs/weekly-usage-of-tiktok-surpasses-instagram-among-us-gen-z-youth/

American Journalists Return to China

Image Via The New York Times

American journalists have been banned from China and vice versa since early 2020. President Biden and President Xi Jinping met this week to overturn the ban and make traveling and reporting between the two countries more accessible for reporters. It was determined that three publications will be able to have journalists in China. These organizations are The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

In the past, Chinese journalists were able to apply for a yearlong visa in the US, but in the last year, the visa time was cut down to 90 days. What isn’t clear in this agreement, is if the reporters who were stationed there prior to the ban and asked to leave will be able to return. This seems to be a step in the right direction when it comes to mollifying the tensions between China And US, especially since the inception of COVID-19. China has different rules about media and its limitations and has been making effort to keep American reporters from writing about the government poorly for years. It is no secret that recent administrations have butted heads with China over other economic issues in the past, but this agreement is progress or foreign media.

“We will continue to work toward expanding access and improving conditions for U.S. and other foreign media, and we will continue to advocate for media freedom as a reflection of our democratic values,” 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/us/politics/us-china-journalists.html

Media Censorship Is Everywhere, But Why Not Podcasting?

Social media platforms have a history of censoring or preventing the spread of misinformation. YouTube tends to demonetize certain videos, and platforms like Instagram and Facebook have a fact-check pop-up that appears on suspicious posts claiming to be true. However, podcasting platforms such as Apple, Spotify, and iHeart Radio lack in censorship. The consequences are starting to creep in, but have not yet fully unfolded.

In the wake of COVID-19, on-air topics of importance have been its spread, its implications, protection, and most importantly, the vaccine. Prominent conservative podcasters have openly criticized the vaccine, spreading fear throughout their audiences. Hosts such as Jimmy De Young Sr. and Marc Bernier have stated that it is a “permanent altering of the immune system” and “not a vaccine”. Both hosts passed away from COVID-related complications a few months following.

Talk show hosts and podcasters with wide ranges of opinions often defend their claims from censorship with the freedom of speech. Granted, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, when information has the potential to harm others, critics look to the streaming platforms for action. A possible step that these platforms could take is demonetizing portions of the advertising that the content creators use. Of course, advertisers and the creators have immediately opposed this proposition.

One of the main reasons people listen to podcasts is to feel as though they are having a conversation with someone about something important, informative, or entertaining. Through this listening the audience maintains a dynamic with the podcaster that can potentially develop into a parasocial relationship. The voice of humans has a strong and lasting impact on listeners. If nothing is done to mitigate misinformation spread, then these close relationships can further harm listeners’ already worsening methods of determining truth.

Diverse Media Outlets Appear in U.S. “News Deserts”

A culmination of issues such as an economic downfall in newspapers and lack of access to digital news have caused efforts from emerging ethnic news outlets to fill the void. This void is known as a news desert, a term defined by Axios as an area where local newspapers have folded and communities have no coverage. These areas endanger the critical role that the press plays in dispersing accurate news coverage and encouraging a democracy.

There are many consequences of a news desert. Communities whose voices are less amplified are only reported on when something worthy of negative press occurs. In the past, systemic racism has played a strong role in prominent media organizations with the leverage to control the narrative.  Cheryl Thompson-Morton, director of CUNY’s Black Media Initiative expands on the documented history of news discrimination.

Some news organizations simply refused to cover most of the civil rights movement or didn’t run that news on the front page — so many readers didn’t know what was happening.

Ethnic news publishers have slowly appeared over time since the 1800’s in efforts to counter the status quo. Despite historically facing backlash, there has been an increase in new ethnic outlets, especially in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

Emerging digital technologies provide access and ease for new publishers seeking to found their own channels for news. These upstarts cater to communities that are often neglected in media, and are growing with friction. Yet, the need for community support is evident being that the news desert remains in many underserved areas.

Alex Jones Guilty by Default in Sandy Hook Defamation Suits

On the morning of November 15th, right-wing extremist media star Alex Jones was named liable in a lawsuit involving the Sandy Hook Shootings. Jones had previously spread false theories about the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The tragedy was a grave landmark in history, killing twenty first-graders and six teachers. Jones utilized his media platform popularly known as Infowars to spread conspiracies that the event was a hoax. He insisted that the parents of the victims were performing as paid actors in a scenario promoting gun control.

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Jones fought to deny the allegations and argued that his claims were protected under first amendment rights. The families initiating the lawsuits have since claimed that fans of Jones have been subjecting them to harassment and death threats.

Extreme, time-consuming efforts to get Jones to comply have granted multiple family members of the victims reward in lawsuits against both Jones and Infowars. Judge Barbara Bellis ultimately issued a default ruling due to Jones’ inability to produce documents that show how he had profited from spreading misinformation. The amount owed to the families of the victims is in the hands of the jury.

Shortly after the Judge’s decision, Jones went on Infowars with claims that he was deprived of a fair trial.

The Importance of Social Media When Job Hunting

Image Via

Social media has undoubtedly become an important part of day to day life. Despite the fact that almost all of Gen Z uses social media, only about a third of them use it when looking for a job after graduation. A resume and cover letter are impersonal and leave the employer wondering who the candidate really is.  Social media is a way to set yourself apart from the competition and give yourself a sort of edge by having quality personal branding. This doesn’t just mean LinkedIn, but other video-based platforms such as YouTube and Instagram. These interfaces can be sparkplugs for careers and help reach people that may have never been otherwise accessible.

Many of us use these platforms for entertainment purposes, but others, such as Kahlil Greene, took this opportunity to try and educate a broad range of people. Greene was a Yale student at the time who used his TikTok account to educate people on Black culture. Unlike other social media platforms, TikTok gives the user the ability to go ‘viral’ overnight. In only a few weeks, he had a following of more than 500,000 people. He will now be working in consulting for a job in public education, a job opportunity that came as a result of his TikTok success.

“I think that’s the thing that people don’t realize, that social media is everywhere, and it’s congruent with every lifestyle you want,” says Greene.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/14/from-tiktok-to-instagram-how-students-use-social-media-to-find-jobs.html

According to research, half of employer’s report that they are less likely to choose a candidate who can’t be found online. Instead of exchanging business cards people are exchanging follow requests, so what you choose to put on your personal account is important. Staying connected with people in your field and using tools on these platforms to highlight accomplishments is a great way to build your personal brand.

What’s Next For People Magazine?

Source via The New York Times

People Magazine was a success within 18 months of its inception. Despite the fact that many people wrote it off as an illegitimate gossip column, it has only grown in popularity. They were one of the first publications to cover celebrities in America and have expanded on that idea ever since.

The popular publication has undergone multiple ownership changes over the years. People’s publisher, a company called Meredith, is in the process of being acquired by digital media company Dotdash for 2.7 billion dollars. The result of this merger will be a new media powerhouse. Unifying these two companies seems to be a no brainer to many, as each has what the other lacks. Meredith has great magazine content and readership and Dotdash has the ability to make it widely available in a digital space.

Many people may be familiar with Dotdash, they are a sub division of the company that runs applications like Tinder. After this acquisition, they will have more than 50 publications. Some examples of these are Better Home & Gardens, Real Simple, and Southern Living. Dotdash CEO Neil Vogel claims that this new merger will result in a major challenge from a digital advertising perspective to big names like Facebook and Google.

 Although Vogel seems to think the two companies can unite harmoniously, many wonder if the same readers interested in Dotdash’s usual thought provoking content will be as fascinated by the tabloid style writing in People. This, coupled with the fact that Dotdash is not familiar with the level of print circulation that is required to keep People afloat, has lead many to raise an eyebrow.

Snapchat Makes Licensing Deal With Sony

Photo Via: musicbusinessworldwide.com

Snapchat has made a licensing deal with Sony Music Entertainment, permitting the use of the record company’s artists’ music on the app. This will grant Snapchat access to music from Sony’s three major labels Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The terms of the deal have not been disclosed.

Snapchat’s existing music partners include MERLIN Members, major publishers Sony Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group and Warner Chappell, Kobalt, BMG, NMPA, and DistroKid. Ben Schwerin, Head of Content and Partnerships at Snapchat commented, “Our new deal with Sony Music marks a major milestone as Snap now has partnerships with all the major labels, in addition to networks of independent labels and emerging artists.”

All music from these labels will be available in the music catalogue of Snapchat’s Sound Feature. This feature permits its 200 million users to add music to their Snapchats. Since the feature has been added in 2020, it has been used nearly 1.2 billion times. 

Following the partnership with Sony, Snapchat also announced it will be releasing a two new features, ‘Sound Lenses’ and ‘Cameo Sound Lenses’.  Described by Snapchat as “a Lens that transforms pictures of anyone to appear as if they are singing a song”, and “apply visual effects to put you and a friend as the stars of your own animated music video”.

The social media platform says these new features will create a more immersive experience for its users as well as provide another platform for artists to their share music. Dennis Krooker from Sony Music Entertainment shared, “We are pleased to be expanding our relationship with Snap to develop new commercial opportunities for our artists around short form video and augmented reality experiences.”