The Platform, The Community, and You (Tube)

YouTube logo, drawn by YouTuber Gawx Art for his video “I Spent 24 Hours drawing the YouTube Logo”.

“To become the primary outlet of user-generated content on the Internet, and to allow anyone to upload, share, and browse this content.”

- YouTube founders’ company aim (Burgess & Green, 2018, p.3)

“A video streaming website. Used to be a great site until its demise when it was bought out by Google.

Although Google did some good things that we accept as the consumer, there were many changes that damaged YouTube. One of these was a bot that filters through ever YouTube video in order to spot

copyright infringement. Now thanks to Google’s lazy choice of using a bot over a human to do the copyright work, big companies saw this as a big money maker and censorship machine and started to

abuse this copyright system in order to harass YouTubers who critique products, movies, etc.”

- Definition of the word “YouTube” on UrbanDictionary.com, by dr.danger65

YouTube Diplomacy 101: The Platform Discourse

YouTube is an American online video sharing/social media platform which was launched in 2005 by founders and former PayPal employees Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, overtaking competition quickly enough to be acquired a year later by Google for $1.65 billion.

Boasting over 2.5 billion monthly active users, 500 hours of videos uploaded per minute and 1 billion videos watched per day¹⁴ (Aslam, 2022), YouTube is currently the world’s second most popular social network¹⁵ (“Most popular social networks”, 2022) in terms of monthly active users. From the beginning, its founders viewed the project as a commercial enterprise and opted for a relatively unrestrained model which allowed anyone to upload almost anything, emphasizing the platform’s neutral role as a web service for sharing, rather than producing content (Burgess & Green, 2018).

This cultural appreciation of user-friendliness and of the collective intelligence of audiences who both refine and generate content, places YouTube in the Web 2.0 nexus of digital spaces,

14 Info last updated on 07/03/22.

15 As of January 2022.

namely an ideal reorganization of the dynamic between content producers and content consumers that assigns to the latter the role of co-creators (Van Dijck & Nieborg, 2009; Banks &

Humphreys 2008). It is important to note, however, that even though Web 2.0 principles enable the share-ability of media content, fair-use contestations limit the creative editing and spreading of popular cultural material, as media companies seek considerable compensation over copyright infringements (Jenkins et al, 2013). Moreover, user-friendliness is not exclusive, when it comes to corporate -rather than amateur- content distributors (Duplantier, 2016).

As an intermediary company which stores and delivers the digital content of both amateur and professional creators, YouTube navigates the discursive space between appeasing corporate concerns over intellectual property on the one hand, and user demands for creative freedom on the other -all the while trying not to alienate advertiser interest-, by discursively positioning itself as a “platform”, in a deliberate effort to highlight its technical neutrality (Gillespie, 2010). This choice reflects a wider change in the digital media environment, namely the rise of the platform paradigm (Burgess, 2015) or platformization of the Internet (Helmond, 2015), according to which a small number of large corporations owns the media landscape (platforms) through which users share content and connect socio-culturally (Burgess & Green, 2018).

Since YouTube has always been characterized by the dynamic tension between a "Silicon Valley" business model gearing towards professional aesthetics and a "Hollywood" ideology interested in sheer scale and creativity (Cunningham et al., 2016), strictly corporate strategy has never won at the expense of co-creator culture; in fact, according to Burgess and Green (2018, p. 12) “For YouTube, participatory culture is core business”.

Convergence Culture

In order to understand participatory culture, we must first discuss media convergence, or, as Jenkins (2006, p.2) says, “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want”, all amounting

to a culture where “old and new media collide, grassroots and corporate media intersect, and the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (ibid. p.2). Ultimately, convergence implies a cross-system, trans-local circulation of media content, which relies heavily on the active participation of its own consumers, and signifies a cultural, rather than technological shift, exactly because the new model consumer is not a passive spectator of whatever his/her digital environment brings forward (ibid.). Within convergence culture then, digital communication is the key allowing for individual users to manifest and take advantage of a collective intelligence which constitutes a revolutionary virtual development in its own right, according to media scholar Pierre Lévy (Lévy, 1997).

The digital revolution paradigm with its implications for the supposedly soon-to-be-extinct, old media has been going in and out of fashion ever since its initial 1990’s appearance predicting the displacement of broadcasting in favor of the Internet (Jenkins, 2006). Even though the dot.com bubble thwarted that original enthusiasm over the computer industry’s game-changing powers, it is important to keep in mind that rather than an absolute change, the digital revolution paradigm is best understood on the basis of dynamic and prolonged tension (ibid.). After all, the Internet shows a lot of promise for the individual as a social actor because it’s “the first modern communications medium that expands its reach by decentralizing the capital structure of production and distribution of information, culture, and knowledge” and, more importantly, because "much of the capital that embeds most of the intelligence in the network is widely diffused and owned by end users" (Benkler, 2006, p. 30). Therefore, decentralized individual action is the incentive of the "networked information economy"

(Benkler, 2006, p.3), in which facilitated (affordable) trans-local communication is achieved.

Early YouTube Research

Early YouTube research on a sample of 4,320 videos from the YouTube categories Most Viewed, Most Favorited, Most Responded and Most Discussed by Burgess and Green (2009) already problematizes the concept of the allegedly amateur YouTuber whose identity,

motivations and content is purely non-market/non-commercial. As a matter of fact, Burgess and Green (2009) framed YouTube as a typically “co-creative” culture (Burgess & Green, 2009, p.90), which is produced dynamically and due to the convergence and interaction of different models and styles (professional – amateur, commercial - non-commercial, etc.). Moreover, Lange’s research (2007), which broke down the casual YouTube user into different categories, such as former participants, casual users, active participants, YouTubers or YouTube celebrities, further indicates that even when some semantic consensus over what a casual user is, is reached, the concept remains complicated and requires further specification.

What stands out in Burgess & Green’s research (2009), is that they explicitly point out that the number of views by itself might not suffice as an indication for YouTube success, because what matters the most is the culturally meaningful spreadability of ideas and styles. This approach is indeed in accordance with their argument that the distinction between market and non-market YouTuber models is unhelpful, as what is important is the understanding of YouTube as a participatory culture environment in which YouTubers -who may be challenging the market vs non-market distinction because of their entrepreneurial behavior to begin with-, emerge and establish themselves through the engagement with and co-creation of a common, communal culture, rather than the cynical use of the platform as a brand-extension mechanism to which ready-made mainstream media techniques are imported.

In an international academic conference on YouTube held in London at Middlesex University in September 2016, Burgess revisited her earlier arguments, adding that vlogging channels could be seen as a critical intersection between user-generated and advertiser-friendly business models (YouTube Conference MDX, 2016). This, early academic research on YouTube allowed for a multidisciplinary approach, according to which YouTube is studied as a key platform in regard to matters pertaining to digital culture and popular societal constructs, in the recent years (Arthurs et al, 2018).

Participatory Video Practice Threatened by YouTube

According to Jenkins, a participatory culture has "relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, (and) strong support for creating and sharing creations with others"

(Jenkins, 2009a, p.5); Moreover, "*…+ its members believe their contributions matter, (and) feel some degree of social connections with one another" (Jenkins, 2009a, p.6). In regards to YouTube, Jenkins specifies that “corporations rarely create communities; (they) court pre-existing communities with their own traditions, their own values and norms, their own hierarchies, their own practices, and their own leadership” (Jenkins, 2009b, p.110).

Montero (2021) points out that, in this case, participation can not be seen as a purely collective endeavor because YouTube, being a commercial organization, has the ability to limit and shape it. Montero (2021) goes on to argue that YouTube should not be seen as something wholly unprecedented, but as a site that “brought cyber-culture and digital technology into the practice of video making and sharing” (Montero, 2021, p. 103). He also identifies the typical participatory video experience as a collective undertaking revolving around sharing a camera and equally contributing to the creation of the final film, whose origins can be traced in the popularization and affordability of portable video equipment in the late 1960s (Montero and Moreno, 2014), and which is set to promote social justice and empowerment (High et al., 2012).

Building upon the work of Burgess and Green (2018) -which identifies YouTube as a meaningful for participatory culture site because it encourages bottom-up cultural dynamics through the co-creation of cultural products-, Montero (2021) argues that participatory cultural video practice is not particularly promoted by YouTube, but de facto emerges nevertheless, due to the way YouTube users behave. He also points out that YouTube as a platform, is akin to an ecosystem in which not only bottom-up cultural dynamics, but also inequalities may be re-produced (Montero, 2021). Especially when it comes to participatory video practices, Montero (2021) makes the following observations, concerning the differences between pre-YouTube participatory culture and current YouTube actuality:

i) Despite YouTube’s own self-conceptualization as a community, the site bolsters individual contributions, whereas participatory video has to do with collectivities.

ii) This gradual YouTube marginalization of amateur users is reinforced by the monetization of user-generated content, and effectively privileges entertainment to the detriment of more important forms of engagement, socially speaking.

iii) In the conceptualization of YouTube as an exemplary case of a participatory culture site, too much emphasis is often placed on digital technology, whereas the focus should remain on the social dynamics which allow for certain variations of participation. It is precisely this imbalance which tends to create the misconception that the genuinely collective participation present in participatory video practices can also be found on YouTube thanks to the use of social media.

A Community of …Watchers?

Even though the importance of individual action has already been highlighted, this does not imply a conceptual rejection of the existence of an online community on the basis that face-to-face interaction is obligatory (Wilson & Peterson, 2002). In fact, according to Kindsmüller (Kindsmüller et al., 2009), the term "online" rather than "virtual" community is preferable exactly because online interaction suffices for the community to be real, and for its members to know and believe that. After all, when it comes to the question “which group constitutes a community?”, the online vs offline contrast is irrelevant; what matters the most is the belief of the group in its own identity, because communities are a shared imagining in the first place (Anderson, 2006).

In the case of YouTube’s social structure, users form communities on the basis of video content, or, in other words, because video itself functions as the catalyst for bonding (Paolillo, 2008). However, YouTube was not designed with collaborative production as a priority, as shown by the fact that social network aspects are not immediately visible in the site’s interface (e.g. video thumbnails but not the comments/dialogue below a video, are visible on the home page) (Harley & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Despite initial optimism over cultural citizenship and

participatory culture in regards to the YouTube potential for amateur appropriation of video formats and messages (Lange, 2008), already by 2008 it had become apparent that YouTube users were mostly on the site to watch videos, rather than actively participate -for example, by commenting and rating- (Cheng, Dale & Liu, 2008).

Participatory Rhythms

In her anthropological analysis of YouTube’s participatory dynamics, Lange (2019), who, by her own admission, builds upon the YouTube analysis of Burgess and Green (first published in 2009 and updated in 2018), acknowledges that the term “participation” may have various meanings: According to the data from her research (Lange, 2019), YouTubers understand the term as dynamically progressing from video watching to video commenting, and, ultimately, to video creation and sharing. Moreover, even though non-video making activities, such as commenting, are endorsed by YouTubers for their community building attributes, the data strongly suggests that there exists a “strong social pull” for YouTube users to make their own videos (Lange, 2019, p.5).

Lange’s (2019) approach is based upon the understanding that video-sharing practices exhibit multiple experiential temporalities, a case best exemplified by the importance and different meanings that the timing of an activity such as commenting can produce (e.g. a comment posted around the same time the video is published may affect the reader very differently than if it were posted many years later). On a macro-level, participatory rhythm in online sites typically involves initial excitement, subsequent intensive participation and feelings of connection, followed, potentially, by disillusionment and “migration” to newer and more popular sites (ibid). Rhythm analysis further elucidates the existence of different modes of YouTube participation (e.g. how soon YouTubers encourage their audience to subscribe to their channels) and will be taken into consideration for the video analysis of this thesis.

So, What Is the Message?

“If you are going to say a thing the substance of which is a big pill for your readers to swallow, there is no use in frightening them at the beginning by the form”

– Gemma (The Gadfly, by E.L. Voynich, 2011: 107)

In general, "people who seek and experience mass entertainment do not do so as isolated, autonomous individuals – as theorists of 'mass society' suggest – but, rather as group members, and in social contexts that call for a high degree of interpersonal communication" (Mendelsohn, 1966, p.74). The meaning of the messages relayed to such group members by mass media will be perceived -and therefore modified-, in the specific context of the group (e.g. a family unit’s socioeconomic class) and circumstances of the individual (Fiske & Hartley, 2003), a phenomenon which reflects the broader lack of consensus in complex societies (Westergaard &

Resler, 1975). In terms of message signification then, societal contradictions are bypassed by providing a mélange of spoken discourse and visual images, that draws attention to the preferred (e.g. the culturally dominant) narrative which real events are made to fit (Fiske &

Hartley, 2003). To put it simply, the context and presentation of the mass media message not only overpowers its logical analysis, but makes the latter unnecessary (ibid.).

Since popular culture is a domain of struggle (Fiske, 2010), it is important to keep in mind that, in the case of YouTube, dominant narratives and corporate interests may be influencing the audience’s making abilities (Strangelove, 2020). However, audience meaning-making in YouTube de facto goes a step further than usual, since amateur online video creators use the opportunity to generate and upload their own takes on commercial film footage, advertisements, music videos or political campaigns (to name but a few opportunities for parody, for example), and such content is often seen as the kind of appropriation which incurs legal repercussions by entertainment corporations (ibid.). Arguably, "amateur video may be closer to the audience and better at representing emerging tastes simply because it is made by the audience. It certainly creates increased competition for eyeballs, provides an alternative to network and cable programming, and resists the tendency of studios to settle on formulaic

productions and sameness" (Strangelove, 2020, p.168).

Self-Branding: The U.S.A. Case

Grzesiak (2018) argues that there are distinctively American elements, culturally speaking, which facilitate the production of a personal brand in ways inaccessible to other parts of the world. He specifically identifies factors in education, social conditioning and marketing practices, such as the inclusion of public speaking courses in official secondary and tertiary curricula, the social acceptance for speaking about one’s self in a self-promotional manner, and the widespread interest, on the part of a long series of professions, in establishing a personal brand (Grzesiak, 2018). As a result, Americans, from a young age already, are more aware of and inclined to use opportunities for self-promotion, a tendency which is also observable in YouTube engagement (ibid.).

Finally, other culturally specific elements, which come into play as far as the American variation of self-branding is concerned, include:

 the multicultural makeup of American society -which practically enables the discussion of more taboo issues in YouTube videos due to the de facto audience diversity-,

 the long tradition of video promotion in the American market (e.g. car rental agencies, advertising gas stations, etc.) and subsequent long existing, tested out know-how,

 the dominance of English language content globally -which guarantees international attention once American YouTubers break through nationally-, and

 the increased economic incentives of American YouTubers, who earn significantly more money from advertising revenues than other YouTubers (Grzesiak, 2018).