Friday Fever- Let us all share

Rebecca Black’s ‘Gotta get down on Friday’ video went viral on YouTube and other social media sites. Where by May 22, 2011, the video had amassed more than 147.4 million views. As such, when the video caught a web tailwind it became yet another example of YouTube’s amateur productive culture that allows the lay citizen to adopt the role of main producer of content on the web.

(Original clip taken from YouTube uploaded by  on Feb 10, 2011)

In a recent Forbes magazine article Chris Barth more cynically draws on this idea of Rebecca Black as a central figure of our amateur production culture.

Believing that social media sites “have latched on to its simplistic lyrics and low-price polish to push it into the public consciousness.” Barth’s skepticism reflects the belief that with the ubiquitous open productive capacity on YouTube ultimately, anyone can be elevated to star status.

Yet what is most interesting is that a search for “Rebecca Black parody” on YouTube pulls up over 4,500 results. While the video has only taken off in the last twelve weeks, since its growth in popularity there have been numerous parody videos and remixes made by other YouTube wannabe producers and stars.

For example this parody was made by a young American girl playing on the words and tune by promoting Christian values… ‘Gotta get down to Church’

(Parody taken from YouTube uploaded by  on Apr 6, 2011)

Essentially, this vast remixing of the clip demonstrates the centrality of Creative Commons that allows people to remix the work of others, and redistribute the changes as their own edition. The ‘Friday’ phenomenon has highlighted that on YouTube there can be as many voices as there are people. Creative Commons facilitates this open sharing culture, without which freedom to remix another person’s work and build upon their ideas would be unfathomable. In allowing people to share and remold the ‘Gotta get down on Friday’ idea, ‘Creative Common’s open remixing policy plays on the fame of Rebecca Black allowing her prominence to be shared with friends and used as part of other people’s creative experiments.

A parody uploaded by my friends was the first of many to get me thinking about this vast remix culture. The below clip is my friend’s parody. They used the song for its notoriety and  familiarity as a means of promoting their youth movement school holiday camp but uploaded the clip to YouTube in order to share their creative efforts with other users and gain feedback. Check it out!!

(Taken from YouTube Uploaded by  on May 24, 2011


10 Reasons to delete your Facebook account

Dan Yoder, cynic or revolutionary?

I found this article ‘10 Reasons to delete your Facebook’ in the Business Insider fascinating. We all love Facebook as it allows us to be stalkers without anyone knowing and recreate ourselves according to the information we want revealed, and that which we want to conceal.

I personally am a stranger to most social networking sites and have never really caught on to the web trend of Twitter, Tumbler or personal blogging. Yet Facebook has developed as something close to an addiction. It transcends time and space, making me feel that while I’m stuck in my room studying relentlessly, I’m not really a recluse, but can vicariously participate in the social events happening outside the four walls of my bedroom through updated text, film and photos as events occur.

That is why when someone puts down Facebook I immediately adopt a  harsh exterior and label them a hater.

In his article Yoder brings up some interesting points about the nature and ideology behind the revered social networking site. Yoder discredits Facebook as highly unethical for its controversial beginnings that claim that Zuckerbeg actually stole the idea. Additionally, he raises the current fear that everyone keeps sweeping under the carpet that of Facebook’s ripe involvement as the prime facilitator of cyber bullying and breaching of individual privacy.

Although shocking, we have all heard of these issues and I have even raised them on another post pertaining to the atrocious breach of privacy when a group of cadets filmed a fellow cadet having sex, launching it on Skype without her knowledge or last year when a Melbourne teenage girl arranged to meet someone over Facebook who ended up murdering her and hiding her body in a field.

Yet no one has so articulately suggested that technologically, ethically and functionally Facebook goes against the grain of the open world-wide web and the qualities it stands for as articulated by Berners Lee in his vision. Yoder continues that for all its fundamental ethical mishaps, particularly the unethical way in which it was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook contradicts the aim of a non hierarchical web, and therefore should be abandoned by the public entirely.

Not wanting to regurgitate his words, I suggest you have a read of the article…and you too may become a Facebook apprehensive.

Until then I’m just going to go and check my Facebook notifications. Addictions aren’t that easily shaken.

Mark Zuckerberg, photo by Sandal wood box photography

‘Hey,’ you’re a racist

Upon my search I found the below blog post most interesting. We all recognize the ‘Hey Clip,’ internationally famous as one of the most viral YouTube clips ever, having been disseminated in astronomic proportions.

The young girls are creative and seemingly enjoying singing and dancing with their friends, in accordance with the vast participatory culture that has been stimulated by YouTube’s amateur production capacity.

Liana brings up a fascinating point that upon discovery that the girls were Israeli, the YouTube clip became a fertile ground for racist remarks and cyber-bullying. Comments about Nazis, murder and political disgrace were seemingly attached to the clip and circulate, attached to the clip that received over 21 million views.

It is acknowledged that the Internet and social networking are prime grounds for cyber bullying and even racism. We have seen cases of people filmed against their will having sex on Skype, kids posting vicious comments on Facebook resulting in teenage suicide  and political slander. Yet it shook me to the core that this footage  of bed room lip syncing uploaded in mere fun and creativity would make the young producers subject to such intense cyber-discrimination.

It just highlighted for me further that you really do need to be careful on the web as people can manipulate what is circulated for their own political agendas.

Some of the comments on YouTube include “i will call adolf hitler’ and “I love ur stupid vid and heartless you are a gay hobo u suck u faking Nazi ur mom and ur dad and brothers Soo goo fuck ur self” -posted by maxbunnyshow 3 weeks ago.

By clipping on the Hey link above the whole discourse of comments can be viewed

Liana’s blog post can be seen by clicking here

Brazil’s LAN houses- a pirate’s dream

The term piracy in the old sense developed in South East when colonial powers  created a monopoly, robbing people of their livelihood and leaving them to fend for himself or herself to no avail. It is from this period that the term piracy has been translated as a negative phenomena in the contemporary cultural realm of media.

In the traditional argument piracy has involved individuals or large corporations stealing cultural production in the form of copying or downloading distribution channels. It is within this context that in his book ‘Paid in full; Piracy and the real currency of cultural production (2008),’Armin Medosch describes the act of piracy as “destroying the businesses of local distributors who offer more culturally diverse and more local goods.”

In the traditional version of events as described by Medosch, piracy is defamed as the root of all evil in the media world, compromising the marketing and livelihood of people’s music, films and literature. Yet up and coming research has reassessed the deeply ingrained opposition to piracy, raising the fundamental issue of piracy in bridging the digital divides. Piracy gives technological reach that otherwise would remain unattainable to the vast majority of people in low socio economic areas. Hence, activity carried out in black or grey markets fulfils culturally important functions by giving people with low access to resources a chance to “empower themselves through obtaining information, knowledge and sophisticated cultural productions.” (Medosch 2008: 318)

This concept of piracy making media more accessible has been highlighted with recent research into the Brazilian slums.  The thriving industry known as the LAN houses are mixtures of Internet cafes, public gaming centers and computer hard and software shops where all internet connections and pirated- stemming from electricity to bandwidth. It is in this way that slum dwellers in Brazil gain access to Internet, movies and computer skills. This enhances their ability to gain knowledge and further their labor abilities in a world where job opportunities are constantly enhanced by technological skills.

It is in this way that we see that piracy is not black and white. While its fundamental base resides in stealing, its role in bridging cultural divides and allowing low socio economic people the same exposure to technology as the middle class, is a benefit that cannot be ignored. Fundamentally, it reflects the vision of the world-wide web as articulated by Berners Lee where all individuals should have the same access to the web’s vast information ecology.

The following article published in the Miami Herald was written by a American journalist Mimi Whitefield documenting the amazing opportunities for children and adults living in the poorest socio economic regions in Rio in gaining internet and computer skills in a pirating cyber café. brazils-lan-houses-help-bridge.html

Google images from

The Monarchy in cyber land

“This one is already heralded as the first of the internet age, where for the first time in thousands of years of royal history, the moment will be captured online and preserved forever.”- (Richard Ball in Mashable)

The royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton will go down in history as the royal wedding of the digital age. In anticipation of the occasion online buzz surrounding the big event manifest in every digital media form, surpassing discussions surrounding the Egyptian uprising and the devastation of the Japanese earthquake.

This Royal Wedding is the first to be streamed live on the Internet. Rather than standing outside Buckingham Palace amidst the cluster of desperate fans who camped outside for days just to catch a glimpse of the fairytale couple, social networking mediums provided the ability for us to participate in the event as it unfolded. It is in this way that social media strongly provides for audience involvement and productivity in world events as they occur.

Amidst hype of the occasion, two billion people were estimated to have watched the live telecast on TV, yet millions of others watched the ceremony via live streaming on YouTube’s The Royal Channel (which was accompanied by a live multi-media blog). Essentially, YouTube encouraged viewers to provide constant feedback and discussion as they watched the live footage. It is recorded that there were 72 million live streams and 101 million total stream views for the day, far surpassing standard YouTube viewership.

Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Flicker emerged as popular forums from which running commentary about intricate details of the nuptials could unfold. Facebook groups such as Kate and William’s royal wedding, to the more obscure Princess Beatrice’s royal wedding hat pervaded the online media scene and spurred countless discussions and debates. BBC couldn’t even provide the coverage it promised with its website crashing around 11:13am on the day of the wedding due to the overwhelming numbers of users. It is in this way that an increase in interactivity via social network sites has provided for instant social exchange and citizenary journalism by giving people the opportunity to view live events and have their say.

Further, statistics gathered and analyzed by Webtrends reveal that in the last 30 days people have sent 911,000 tweets, which is more than 30,000 tweets per day about the royal wedding. This astronomic figure accounts for 71% of the buzz Webtrends tracked on the web altogether. Additionally, an estimated 684,399 status updates were posted and 145,000 independent blog posts bombarded the online media sphere, making it more clear that social media is not a passing fad with which we are temporarily fixated but a revolutionary change in the way we receive our information and interact with society.

The wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will ultimately be remembered as the first royal wedding of the internet age. While Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s wedding is recorded as the most widely viewed program with an estimated worldwide television audience of 750 million people, social networking’s wide information ecology allowed for greater audience participation in the royal affair. If there’s one thing we learned from the use of social media during the Royal Wedding, it’s that we are part of a seemingly shrinking world made more closely knit by our increasing use of social networks.

So thanks, Kate and Will, for reminding us that there really is no end in sight when it comes to the power of social media and its influence on our culture. We we wish you well in your new life…but beware, we will always be watching.

Inforgraph from Webtrends– Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Notice. Materials may be made available via the Service by third parties not within our control.



Osama… tweeted to death

Ever since the announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death people worldwide have been dispersing information pertaining to the nature and order of events. Traditional methods of media coverage were put into motion automatically, but it was the social media scene that exploded, circulating information and launching group discussion and debate on an unprecedented global scale.

Once the death of bin Laden was broadcasted to the public, Twitter erupted. Twitter’s instant accessibility spread the news globally. So much so that a report from a neighbour claiming that he saw helicopters surrounding the complex highlighted the deeply entrenched citizenry journalism in our culture, where lay citizens can break stories before the mainstream media. Accordingly,  Twitter users were already discussing the mysterious situation in Pakistan well before Obama made his speech at 11:30 PM. During Obama’s speech, 4000 tweets were being produced per second, which made this microblogging site a vital source in staying updated throughout the night.

Further, Facebook feeds became saturated with Osama bin Laden related information, a specific Facebook fan page become very popular. Within 2 hours of the news surfacing, the page Osama bin Laden is DEAD, accumulated over 150,000 likes. Growing stronger with over 350,000 likes today, the page has become a hub for Facebook members to gather and share news and opinions on this historical event.

Furthermore,  YouTube saw a surge of video uploads and searches after Osama’s death was announced. The most popular videos that were searched  included “Osama bin Laden dead,” Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue,” and “God Bless America.” Video uploads began rolling in, and featured many personal reactions to the event that had just taken place, in addition to on-scene celebrations at places such as the World Trade Center and United States Naval and Airforce Academies.In addition to these videos getting many views, Bush’s speech from the 2001 terrorist attacks became the number one trending video on Twitter.

Throughout the groundbreaking events surrounding Osama Bin Laden’s death, social media played a huge role in allowing people to spread news and express their views and exchange differing perspectives. Social networking enabled users to share information, opinions, videos and photos allowing them to be involved in the momentous event as it unravelled. The far reach of these facilities in spreading between national borders was groundbreaking.

Google Images- Twitter-Osama-Bin-Laden-Alqaeda-Location-Tweets-Joke.jpg


CC- I’ve got the power

In recent years remix culture has become mainstream. This phenomenon that allows people to draw on the creative works of others, and incorporate them into their own body of expression is widely adopted. It is within this context that Lawrence Lessig refers to the remix culture as a “platform that invites people from around the world to participate.” (Lessig, 2005:90)

This reality of a collaborative web culture where people build on the ideas of others and redistribute them as their own has created hazy lines surrounding the laws of copyright and personal freedom. It is in this way that Creative Commons has emerged as a necessary advance in licensing systems.With Creative Commons there are no infringements to the traditional copyright laws, yet there are more varied and open choices for producers when considering how they want their ideas to be used by others.

Accordingly, Creative Commons fulfils a vital role within a culture of amateur remixing and appropriation. In allowing creators of content to choose and mix between different levels of freedom and protection, people are able to safety share their music and texts yet retain some rights. As such,  producers of content are able to select the license that protects their ideas and reflects their personal views about remixing content

The following video encapsulates Lessig’s view that CC fulfils a vital role in our online community, by ensuring that individuals maintain control over the extent to which their work is shared and remixed by others. Lessig was a key player in the copy right reforms, which he believes limit the ability of copyright owners to maintain vast control over people’s creativity.

Lawrence Lessig featured, video taken by Steven Johnson for Flora TV

I chose Creative Common’s Attribution-Share Alike license, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon my work, even for commercial purposes. It is important to me that my work be part of an open and inclusive forum, whilst still being able to gain the appropriate credibility for ideas that I have worked on. This license provides for an equilibrium between encouraging people to build on my ideas whilst still recognizing that they have emanated from my initiatives.

Firstly, I believe it is important to collaborate and share ideas online so that the web can continue to grow and develop. In order to advance as a society it is imperative that we work with one another to propel change and this is more easily achieved if we have access to one another’s ideas. I would want my work to contribute to this diversity of information so that people can draw on my ideas to further enhance social problem solving tactics. It appears to me a futile task to publish ideas on a blog, yet limit people’s ability to expand on them. By allowing my work to be free and open this means that people are encouraged to think critically about what they read and use it as a springboard from which to launch their own ideas.

Specifically, as a Media and Communications student I am constantly drawing inspiration from the citizenry journalism on the web in the form of other people’s blogs, opinion pieces and interviews. For example, I am constantly researching interesting ideas on the Crikey blogs site, using their alternative stories as ideas to build upon when having to submit  environment and travel blogs for my Writing Journalism folio. It is in this way that people are constantly drawing on the ideas of others as a basis for building their own theories, and I would want my blog to be facilitate this sharing, just as I have gained ideas from others.

Secondly, there is no gain in disallowing someone from profiting from work that was based on my initial ideas. The feeling of accomplishment in having facilitated someone else’s success and knowing that my intellectual ideas stimulated their profit, is the highest sort of benefit. Someone else’s profit does not detract form the depth of my ideas as I myself am not blogging for financial gain. Medosch affirms this belief expressing “money does not induce me to write a text, I write anyway” (Medosch 2008:316). It is within this context that Lawrence Lessig affirms that “there is no loss for me if I divulge my work, I will not be ‘lessening mine; as he who lights the taper at mine receives light without darkening me.” (Lessig, 2005: 302)

Thirdly, this open license still ensures that accompanying work will be attached to my name. This means that my hard work will not go unrecognized but rather will be known as the foundation upon which other developments are based. I see this as a positive thing, whereby in allowing people to build on my ideas I am getting more circulation and gaining a helping hand in dispersing my agenda. Further, this license ensures that all people who build on my ideas must also attach open licenses to their works. It feels good knowing that I am contributing to a larger chain of free-flowing information by preventing people from attaching limiting licenses to ideas drawn from my initial work.

Some people argue that the Web 2.0 paradigm distorts the value of a free net culture by enclosing user-generated content into propriety platforms. CC is helping to placate this issue by allowing producers to signal the rights they are happy to give away and those they want to keep so that we can have “a more balanced and rational copyright system.” (Lessig, 2005:81). As my blog allows my ideas to be copied, distributed, edited, remixed and built upon my Creative Commons license does not discard the concrete laws of copyright, but rather tweaks it to a level I am comfortable with. I believe that attaching an open information license to my blog allows me to contribute to the online society, just as I  as an aspiring journalist have gained inspiration from the ideas of others on the web. Essentially, attaching this CC license to my blog makes me feel part of “a utopian society in which all information could be shared among people who communicated as equals.” (Berners-Lee 1999:30)

The power of my blog is in my hands.

Berners-Lee, Tim, 1999, Weaving the Web, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Lawrence Lessing, ‘Open Code and Open Societies’; Perspectives on free and open source software. London, Cambridge Press, 2005

Armin Medosch, ‘Paid in Full: Copyright, Piracy and the Real Currency of Cultural production,’ London, Deptforth, 2008

Cartoon taken from Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Produsage…breaking the chains?

What does produsage really mean?

In acquiring the role of ‘produser’ anyone can edit on the web, creating a decline in the traditional value chain of the way information is produced. As usage and production are increasingly, inextricably intertwined, strict distinctions between producers, distributors, and consumers no longer apply. In a user-led, digital environment the distribution of products is no longer controlled (and controllable) by producers and distributors but users become producers of their own content. In collaborating on the web’s content and expressing their views and ideas, consumers join together in common interest groups. Essentially, the core aim of produsage lies in providing value-added services around freely available content where users become producers, and the Net replaces the distributor

Produsage emerges in various domains…

1. Open source software development

2. Online publishing


∘open news – e.g. Slashdot, Indy media, OhmyNews

3. Knowledge management

∘wikis – e.g. Wikipedia

∘social bookmarking – e.g. delicious, digg

∘geotagging – e.g. Google Earth, Frappr

4. Multi-user gaming

∘e.g. The Sims, Everquest, Second Life, Spore

•Media sharing and creative practice

∘e.g. Flickr, ccMixter, YouTube, Jumpcut,

5. Reviews and viral marketing

∘e.g. Epinions, IgoUgo

•automatic aggregation

Google, Amazon, Technorati

image taken from google images atom-produsage.png

”I’m bout to root a girl n have webcam set up to the boys in another room…hellz yea.”

The expansion of the social web and our growing involvement with online communication has conjured a false sense of security that is fostered within the privacy of our own social circles. The sense of comfort and belonging that is falsely forged through conversing with other web users often makes people feel as if they have full control over the nature of information that they reveal about themselves on the web.

Time has shown that people’s privacy is increasingly being exploited and obliterated via the web’s pervasive social mediums.

The recent case of a female Australian Cadet filmed having sex on Skype, is pertinent to the lack of privacy facilitated by the web’s wide reaching nature. The woman consensually engaged in sex with a fellow first-year cadet, but was horrified to find out that the man had left a webcam on allowing five friends to watch in an adjacent room.The charges relate to two Cadets, Daniel McDonald and Dylan de Blaquere who also disseminated pictures taken from the incident and shared around the academy. While the sex was consensual the dissemination of the private footage was a complete obstruction of the female’s privacy and personal freedoms.

The charges relate to two Cadets, Daniel McDonald and Dylan de Blaquere.

The following is an exert from a Facebook conversation between the male Cadet and friend as reported in a newspaper article in the Guardian

McDonald:  ”I’m about to root a girl n have webcam set up to the boys in another room”.

Friend: ”Oh friggen hell is she aware of this or not”

”Nope,” McDonald replied.

It is in this way that the web’s open mechanism of social networking has served to propel online bullying and sexual harassment in endemic proportions. And this is but one example in a plethora of cases. While there are regulations in place denouncing breaches of privacy the open and all encompassing nature of the web makes monitoring the status of a person’s personal rights and security a difficult endeavour.

Google Images social-networking-failure.gif

Pick me…I want to be a star YouTuber

Burgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Reader, page 269).

Chris Crocker became famous after his obnoxious rant calling for people to “leave Britney alone.” Alexis Jordan was given a recording deal after her video went viral and two young Israeli girls got over 21 million views for remixing the original Pixie song ‘hey.’ While each of these individuals have varying creativity and talent, they all have one overarching thing in common. Their discoveries and fame are all attributed to YouTube. It is in this way that as the home of user generated content YouTube has become a launching platform for new stars. As a medium of vast participatory features YouTube has become the place of DIY artistic expression where amateur videos can elevate ordinary citizens to mainstream celebrity status.

Hey Clip, taken from YouTube

Hence, YouTube has undoubtedly altered the realm of mass media by redefining the means by which individuals can achieve status within pop culture. The platform of media fame once confined to Hollywood celebrities and TV icons, now extends to amateur artistic expression that has allowed stardom to be created from the bottom upwards. Celebrity status is harnessed through online communities and fandom where YouTube users rally around their most liked talent, trying to bring about their fame. It appears that young people are the biggest agents of YouTube’s participatory culture, responsible for what Burgess and Green refer to as “YouTube’s mundane content in the form of teenage hijinks and bedroom lip synching.” (Burgess and Green 2009:267). In essence, YouTube has become “a launching platform for many new stars” (Couldry 2003:266) as it increases the productive capacity of everyday people to express their creativity.

There are many examples of  the accessible media technology of YouTube opening up possibilities for the commercialization of amateur content.For example the success of comedians Andy Samberg and Akiva Schnaffer exploded after their comedic renditions ‘the bu’ a parody of the O.C, led them to a deal with Fox for a permanent comedy sketch. Further, US band Ok-Go was thrust to the forefront of mainstream stardom after local fans uploaded their video from their own site onto YouTube. As recording labels and talent scouts increasingly turn their attention to online publishing opportunities YouTube has “mythologized as literally a way to broadcast yourself into fame and fortune.” (Burgess and Green 2009:270)

The ‘Bu’ clip, taken from YouTube

Yet, according to Burgess and Green it is a common assumption underlying the celebrity trend of cultural production that “raw talent combined with digital distribution convert directly to legitimate success and media fame” for everyday users (Burgess and Green 2009:269). It is in this way that individual success stories that appear to realize the ultimate star dream (such as Ok-go and ‘the Bu’) in reality fail to receive the star power that comes from their own creativity.

Many cultural studies argue that celebrity status can only be achieved when these DIY celebrities gain access to the mode of representation of mainstream media. While many do bridge this divide and launch into the mainstream celebrity realm, they remain confined to the same limits of “existing structures of celebrity” (Couldry 2003 :271) where they are produced, controlled and beholden to the mechanisms of old media forms. Hence, even when ordinary people become celebrities through their own creative efforts, there is no necessary transfer of media power. The commercialization of amateur content is thus measured “not only by their online popularity but by their subsequent ability to pass through the gate keeping mechanism of old media- the recording contract, the film festival, the tv pilot the advertising deal.”

Evidently there are those who do transcend mainstream pop barriers and succeed in harnessing an active celebrity function outside of YouTube. Alexis Jordan’s YouTube dominance translated into a viable record deal. While Justin Beiber has achieved star status of unprecedented proportions from his YouTube revelation. Yet Justin Beiebr’s recent Hollywood blockbuster ‘Never say Never” (aka a media frenzy) stands as testament that even YouTube stars who are groomed carefully through cultivated homegrown brand identities “seem to be making a living via advertising revenue, reaching large audiences.”  It is within this context that Burgess and Green state that “these examples do not in themselves realize the myth of DIY celebrity so much as they demonstrate its limits.” (Burgess and Green 2009:269)

Perhaps this highlights the paradoxical nature of YouTube. With its own internal system of determining star status it does not necessarily translate into mainstream stardom expectations. Famous for his obnoxious and annoying rant, Chris Crocker’s emotive defense of Britney Spears went viral. Yet his ‘star status’ would only be achieved by ongoing participation in YouTube mediums, unable to stand on its own in the mainstream world of celebrity talent. This essentially illustrates that “YouTube has its own internal system of celebrity based on values that don’t necessarily match up neatly with those of the dominant media.” (Burgess and Green 2009:270)

Chris Crocker, taken from YouTube

Essentially, mainstream media perspectives on amateur video have shown an appreciation for youth, gender and DIY. As previous media consumption was based on old forms of analogue media, YouTube is vastly innovative by allowing lay individuals to self-broadcast and acquire fame on the web. Yet this essentially captures the DIY myth. Once YouTube producers achieve viral popularity on the site and this reception transcends into the mainstream pop culture,  their creative efforts are often unable to stand on their own and they are incorporated into the same existing mass media constraints.

Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, YouTube and the Mainstream Media, in YouTube: Online and Participatory Culture, Cambridge: Polity press, 2009

Nick Couldry, The Place of media Power: Pilgrims and Witnesses of the Media Age, Routledge 2003