Patreon Vs Youtube

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

Gladwell sends a very strong message about how social media cannot cause a major revolution in society; likewise, Baron is sending across the same message. Revolutions continue even after the internet is shut down. As crowds gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Baron describes how they “continued to grow during the five days that the Mubarak government shut down the internet” (330). The crowds increased in size without the help of social media. Somehow, word got out and people came to support the cause. Also, Baron brings into realization that Americans are too involved in the world of social media. Americans fail to realize all of the news that they are missing because they “can’t seem to survive without the constant stimulus of digital multitasking” (Baron 330). American citizens are too busy tweeting about what they ate for breakfast to worry about the hungry that is going on overseas. They depend on social networking to tell them the news rather that picking up a newspaper and reading about what is going on in their country or maybe even overseas in a different country.

Kembrew McLeod, independent filmmaker and Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa, advocates for the revision of intellectual property law in regards to digital sampling in his article, Confessions of An Intellectual (Property): Danger Mouse, Mickey Mouse, Sonny Bono, and My Long Winding Path as Copyright Activist (McLeod 2014). The scope of McLeod’s research removes the technological determinant that precedes our culture. The author identifies the controversy surrounding the

YouTube’s broadened scope presents some corporate use for those businesses with video-worthy content and the desire to share

The pervasive nature of the Internet has made the copying of music and software exceptionally easy, fast and for the most part, undetectable. The ubiquity of the Internet and the speed at which music and software can be copied is also changing the sociological and legal aspects of computing as well (De George, 2006). For the first time the availability of technology is driving a level of expertise with computer users globally that give them the opportunity to capture, distribute, duplicate and even re-publish massive amounts of intellectual property that isn't theirs (Wilson, 2007). This is forcing the issue of copyright infringement and the protection of intellectual property at a global scale. In so doing, this dynamics is also re-ordering ethics surrounding all forms of digital content as well.

Patreon is an example of crowd funding. Just like Kickstarter, a Patreon user would pledge money for those supporting the artist. Giving rewards are also vital and as a token of gratitude. If the supporting customer pays more money per month, the more rewards they get. Most artists use Patreon over Kickstarter because it enables creators to receive support on their regular daily basis. You can even choose if your patrons pay per creation or per month. Also, Patreon has goals to achieve. If an artist reaches their goal, he or she can be able to continue creating art, quit their day job, or upgrading their

In ‘How Netflix is Deepening our Cultural Echo Chambers’, Farhad Manjoo uses the remake of “One Day at a Time” to emphasize the imperative shift of an era focused on streaming that entails a narrow set of refined references. By first exhibiting a remade show on a platform such as Netflix, the re-examination of reality is displayed to be evolving the mainstream identity of millions. From broadcasting, cable then to streaming the secular depiction of being a “vast wasteland” emerges into the view of a “bubbling sea of creativity” that allows for collective groups of individuals to be recognized. Manjoo insinuates that through the shared references viewers attained through television, nothing thereafter will have the direct mass impact of a singular movement of culture that the medium television had at its peak. Although seemingly

Internet expands more each and every year. Although this is a good thing because we have way more resources now. It becomes way too progressive that humans get to into it. The government takes advantage of this. Humans have emotions and sometimes a way to let them out is to have the internet. People believe everything they post is safe but the government owns some of these websites we use. The government withholds a lot of our information, so it is questionable ton ask if what we put online is safe. The author extensively explores the role of internet censorship in the right to decide what art, or entertainment tool we use (1). This shows that not only do we think everything we post is safe but in the end it is our fault. We document part of our life and post on social media to make our life better or cooler in some ways. It is good to believe that most of the time the government will not do anything but it is also scary to know that they can track where someone is at any

Berners-Lee questions whether America “[wants] a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online?” and cable companies are able to “decide which opinions we read”. To an extreme level, cable companies would be able to determine “which creative ideas succeed” (Berners-Lee 2). This opposes the freedom that American citizens strive for. It puts a limits the equal opportunity that so Americans find so important. Furthermore, “the change would allow internet-service providers to throttle some online traffic and allow companies to pay extra for faster delivery of their content” (Martinez & Hoisington). Without net neutrality, internet-service providers would be able to smother small or upcoming businesses by limiting their audience. However, the impact of the repeal of net neutrality does not stop here. The repeal of net neutrality “also eliminates several other consumer protections, such as a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps” (Brodkin 1). Repealing net neutrality would deregulate internet-service providers, allowing them to have far too much control over their

Are you aware that six corporations control 90% of the media In America? The Media Industry is changing everyday, companies must continually change the way they deliver products to the public. Some of the best examples of how companies are using new media to distribute products are Carnival Films, and Youtube. Carnival Film is the production company behind Downton Abbey. You Tube is a video sharing sight that started out as a place for John Q. Public to post his home movies. YouTube has become an internet phenomenon and a distribution point for features film, music videos and TV shows. It is important to understand how the companies use the internet to air the products. More important to us the consumer is to understand who owns

The Internet has incurred a tremendous amount of growth and opportunity for the country as well as the world; elevating communication, information, and commerce to a new level. With all this unprecedented innovation, the Internet has also brought controversy that challenges the very foundation of rights that countries like the United States were founded on. With countless websites containing unregulated and objectively offensive content, and the public having an ease of access to this content will result in severe damages to the development of the youth if no censorship is put in place for them to view this content. Additionally, markets are being exploited by piracy which has resulted in billions of dollars being lost by the domestic economy

In his article Too much power lies in tech companies' hands, author Stephen L. Carter implies that technology companies are too powerful, due to their ability to control the internet. Due to Tech companies' decision to only cater to specific consumers, Carter argues that websites can be removed for having non-conforming views. For example, The Daily Stormer was removed from the web due to their relentless attacks on a deceased protester. Being removed in such a manner means that the site has been deprived of essential web technologies such as “web security” and “cloud computing”. Since the companies have the freedom to remove anyone at their discretion Carter asserts that these companies are exercising a power similar to a government. This

In our society, there are many forms of mediated texts ranging from newspapers and magazines to films and television shows. Each of these media forms can be seen from different theoretical perspectives and analyzed to understand the different concepts that may influence them. Television shows are one of the most popular media texts with approximately 400 new shows airing each year (Ryan, 2016). However, it is often very unlikely for these television shows to strive as 65% are cancelled after their first season (Ocasio, 2012). This then, brings Marxist scholars into the picture as they are interested in how economic factors affect the production and distribution of media content (Mack & Ott, 2016). The Marxist theoretical perspective allows Marxist scholars to study television shows in order to understand why they were cancelled and how certain roles in the media lead to this.

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

Internet censorship may make the virtual world a safer place by protecting the users from bad influences. Lee Baker, writer for Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, notes that,“In April 2009, Moldovan youths used Twitter, Facebook, and other ICT to organize a flashmob after the results of a parliamentary election indicated a Communist victory”. This is just one of many examples of the way the internet can be used in negative ways to cause chaos. Also, terror groups have been known to use the internet as a recruitment tool and that can affect anyone. These attempts can’t be stopped completely but it can help mitigate the impact. Nevertheless some see the censorship of the internet as a bad thing.