Comments: Depth vs. Base
Are the comments even well thought out or just basic in modern Youtube? Is it more efficient and helpful to keep comments quick and simple, or should they be written out as constructive, explanatory criticisms?
Humans are cognitive misers. We are likely to take the easiest path especially if we get used to not doing anything more difficult. We create schemas with heuristics to make all of our decisions and comprehensions come quicker and easier. Laziness can make people come across as not very kind online. One of the only ways to shorten a critical and useful complaint to the fewest words possible is to say that "I do not like the video," or worse, "this sucks." When one person acts this way, there is a cyclical nature of possibly unconscious peer pressure. Anonymity does not help since people sometimes do not care to even try to look intelligent, thoughtful, or humane when they know they will have no consequences. Of course, this is all seen as unintelligible by some, but others still can become very hurt or offended by the comments.
The digital humanities could be incorporated into YouTube in more ways than it already has been. Videos are a type of humanity, but the comments can be used for a type of literary theory and criticism or even be used more like blogs for the digital humanities advanced display. David Foster Wallace used irony in his stories, but knew that irony was overused, and it still is. Criticism is dying as whole. Film critics, music critics, book critics, and any type of critic derived from the preceding list are all losing jobs and places to post their ideas. Criticism is still something that people often partake in, but many people are not taking it seriously anymore. People are much more focused on avant garde art, humor, and reproduction than any kind of criticism or theory of other work.
This page has paths:
- Ratings, Comments, and Reporting Cae Herlin