Since the website’s initial launch in 2005, YouTube has managed to cement itself as not only one of the world’s most powerful websites, but also one of the world’s most powerful media empires. Unlike other media empires, YouTube has a very limited degree of control over the content that it broadcasts. This is because the site’s content is entirely uploaded by either users or unaffiliated companies. Some users of YouTube have managed to use the site as a platform to launch successful careers as independent film makers (A.K.A ‘content creators’) thanks to YouTube’s partner program. The site is truly empowering to the individuals who arrange its intrinsically diasporic ethos. Embedded within YouTube’s nature is a sense of equality and freedom. Any user has the ability to have their voice heard and projected on a global scale. Logically, this means the users are also free to support any voice or any opinion.
However, with YouTube’s rise in power has come a change in mentality. The fourth estate has become aware of the power and possibilities of YouTube. Whether intentionally or not, the site has slowly begun to associate itself with the practices of old media. Once upon a time, the most recognisable videos were cute home videos, and opinionated vlogs. Today, they are music videos owned by Universal, television snippets from NBC and trailers to Hollywood films. YouTube is still a great platform to show your creative side and voice your opinion to the world. Just don't be surprised if no one listens, and don't count the views.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AJtdKW6Nsg
An interesting Vlog by Dan 'Pogobat' Brown on the YouTube 'community'.
Gaidan, B 2007, ‘My life with computers on a remote island’, in LE Dyson, M Hendriks & S Grant (eds), Information technology and Indigenous people, Information Science Publishing, Hershey, Pa., pp. 58–60.
Desai, J 2004, ‘Reel a state: reimagining diaspora homeland, and nation-state in Srinivas Krishna’s Masala’ Beyond Bollywood: the cultural politics of South Asian diasporic film, Routledge, London, pp. 101–31.