« About Open | Main | The Revolution is in Full Swing »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

D'Arcy Norman

I've still never seen Hulu in action. All I get is a "YOU CAN'T SEE THIS FROM WHERE YOU ARE!" fail message. Yay big media. No thanks.


Interestingly, Obama has turned off ratings and comments on his video postings (at least the ones that I looked at). Also, one risk I see with YouTube, and maybe this was mentioned on NPR, is what happened when the video was over. I got the video suggestions that appear over the just completed one and the choices were: (1) Obama's speech in Chicago and (2) Crazy Cat Attaching Spuds Dog. Not exactly what you hope to be associated with a presidential fireside chat.

Cole Camplese

D, that's too bad. It really is a move in the right direction (I guess as long as you live in the States). Another reason why open needs to be really open. When we get together in Borelando for ELI I'll show it to you ;-)


Interesting comment, Scott, about the crazy cat attacking spuds dog. I see where you are coming from. I wonder if public figures worry or ever worried about what content follows them on radio and TV? I am asking that question for realz. Network television can carry the debate and then show a hot-dog eating contest between a man and a bear. I wonder if it is just a question of understanding the conventions of the medium.

Another aspect to Obama's use of social media sites: Will the overly cautious among us that still see engaging in these spaces as an horrific unknown find it harder to justify their argument when the office of the president-elect is present in these spaces?

P.S. The bear won - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgqbCq_sxmo

Stephen Downes

Hulu broadcasts nothing but error messages to people outside the United States. Not only is this really annoying (especially when Hulu vids are served up by people who have no clue that they are doing this) it is perpetuating a model of the internet we do *not* want to support, one in which it is partitioned and enclosed by content companies. It is *not* a move in the right direction. IMHO you should not support Hulu in any way.

Stephen Downes

It's not clear that the posting of clips online is illegal - just that the producers say it is illegal.

In any case - we were still in a better position a year ago, even if the actions were illegal, because the 'legal' alternative we are seeing today is unacceptable.


Brad - I agree that politicians don't think about what comes on after them exactly (though I would guess they choose their timeslots and channels carefully - not many political speeches on espn). However, I think the difference is that you get the impression with the youtube example that there is a relationship between the "suggestions" and the original video. This is amplified by the fact that the other suggestion is of another Obama speech. Maybe you are right that it is just a convention of the medium, but what I don't see on television after a political speech is a trailer that says "if you enjoyed this speech you might like to watch the annual hot dog eating contest at coney island available on Ch. 13".

Cole Camplese

Stephen ... I will agree with you that filtering of any sort is a bad thing. No excuse for that. Google's search returns across the world, hulu's blocking of content, and governmental content filtering is just plain bad for the web. Let along big media control over content ... all of it is not only frustrating, it is misleading and can cause very ill effects across the globe.

I am not rejoicing hulu as a corporate entity on any level, I am pointing to the fact that NBC has decided to start paying attention to the realities of our medium. Greed is still the foundation for their decisions.

But with that said, let me pose this as a follow up question ... are the moves by hulu not progress? Given where we were just a year or so ago, can't this be viewed as a step in the right direction? Supporting them is one thing, pointing to the progress is another. Other thoughts?

Stephen Downes

A year ago people were just posting the clips to YouTube, where thy were watched by everyone in the world. Compared to where we were then, this is a big step backwards.

Cole Camplese

OK, I can see that. But in the case where they posted a clip from TV they were violating copyright law. I don't agree with that position, but there are a lot of things I disagree with that I have to fight the fight my way. My point is that there is a legal resource of embedded "big media" available, albeit in a limited way, but that could change over time. And people still do post a lot of the same content to youtube ... it is just done illegally. What to do?

My desire is for both legal and open access to media content. For some reason, if it is from the big guys we can't seem to get both. Creative Commons content gets better and richer every single day, but at the moment I am seeing incremental progress on the part of the media industry.

Cole Camplese

Stephen ... perhaps this would be an excellent opportunity to discuss this and other things on the ETS Talk Podcast we make at PSU? Love to talk more about this with you and where we need to be headed ... any chance?

The comments to this entry are closed.