If the original (now deleted) thread was implying that Jay (Jay's Audio Lab) engages in hyperbole and sensationalism, then I have yet to witness it. I will admit two things though: his youtube titles can be described as hyperbolic sometimes but I always find that the content is very well balanced and accurate. Secondly, I have not watched all his videos, so perhaps there are some which probably fit the description.
Any good video sites out there?
So, my post about the clickbait nature of some youtube video sites was removed.
I was not trolling. I was not baiting.
Let's think about this for a moment. This is a hobby that pays attention to reviews. They drive sales, conversations, and how we perceive audio itself.
Therefore, it's relevant to an audio hobbyist site to discuss the kinds of reviews out there. A good, informative review can guide members toward new ways of evaluating audio and help them make more informed decisions. On the other hand, review sites which are inaccurate or even just hyperbolic in their reviews or in their titles also have an impact on how seriously we can take that site. In the case of YouTube, some members here think that it is YouTube itself that is at fault.
So, this is a valid topic for an audio forum. I went to a site -- which shall remain nameless because critique is not allowed, I guess -- which is consistently saying that the latest review is the "best ever" or "the most ultimate XYZ ever" etc. This is the kind of hyperbole which, I am arguing, has a negative effect on other, less manic sites -- which I will not name, either -- the ones not trying to work the algorithms to garner clicks.
The post I made was a claim with evidence -- evidence supporting the claim that there was a hyperbolic quality to the site. That's all I did.
And then my post was taken down.
Let's analyze what has just happened.
Violating post policies means posting "prohibited content."
The rules are as follows:
You will not submit content that is copyrighted or subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy, publicity, trade secret, etc., unless you are the owner of such rights or have the appropriate permission from their rightful owner to specifically submit such content.
You will not post information that is malicious, false or inaccurate.
You will not post content that is sexually expicit.
You will not post content that is abusive or defames another member of The Service.
Those of you who read my post will realize that I did none of these things. What I did was call attention to a youtube site that -- I am claiming, with evidence -- tends toward hyperbole in their titles.
If this post gets taken down, then I think only one conclusion can be drawn about what has happened to "moderation" here.
- ...
- 40 posts total
I think that Jay is very honest...Like the OP is also and his question legitimate ... It is not the question... I am honest also and i may use metaphor and hyperbole to communicate HONESTLY my emotion... All reviewer are not tailored on the same mold either ... All reviewers may be informative and entertaining at some ratio...The best one will be informative and also entertaining... The success of Jay thread come from the balance between the two and the two tools, the objective one and the subjective one used equally... It is why this is a "touchy" matter... And being honest and he is , still he must "sell" his expertise and communicate his feelings... And we as customer must take it with a grain of salt... Nothing is white or black here... But this was not a matter for censorship, even if i understand why for sure...
|
This is pretty much the last thing I’ll say on this issue. Artemus -- Agreed. I’ve done many posts and have been misunderstood at times. When I’m misunderstood, I first look to see if it was how I initially put things. In some cases, I have clarified, in some cases I have retracted, and in other cases I have stood by what I said. In this case, I stand by what I said before, and now. In my initial post, I did not us the Agon user name or his channel. I did list some of the hyperbolic titles, some of what had the name "Jay" in them. I kept the title verbatim because I was quoting. Sleuths here figured it out. Some here rushed in to "save" Jay from my "bashing." But Jay wrote those titles, not me. He has 10k subscribers. He is engaging in public discourse, open to all. My calling attention to title that *he* wrote on a *public* channel is not bashing. Do his friends and followers believe he is so vulnerable as to need their rescue? In my little opinion, the strategy of clickbait titling, on a pubic-facing audiophile channel, contributes to an issue discussed very often on this forum -- the tendency for industry participants, including reviewers, to promote gear with hyperbole ("the best ever" "the greatest" etc.). It is a way of doing things that I think dilutes and cheapens conversation about the hobby. Disagree? That’s fine. What are your reasons? But clutching your pearls and calling me a "basher"? Grow a pair. I’ve explained this position to the moderator who understood what I was up to and promised to pause a bit longer before deleting another post of mine. Again -- I know this site is a "business." But I’m not a business. I’m a person, engaging in conversation with others about an art form -- living in a culture. Culture trumps business in my book, and I don’t ask permission from "business" for what I say. I say it and see what happens. There was blowback. Fine. But some understood what I said, why, and they took away something to think about. I don’t care about convincing the close-minded or other angry keyboard warriors looking to fight a battle. No need to waste time. |
think i mentioned this in an earlier post in the now deleted thread clickbait is a fact of life these days, any online info source seeking eyeballs engage in the practice, just some content providers are more egregious than others - economics of web is fundamentally ’clicks = $$’ and regarding censorship, it is no more wrong for someone to call out click bait than it is for someone to put clickbait out there in the first place... free speech should cut both ways yes? |
The problem with human societies, and the source of all their issues... is that they are full of individuals. The reason societies work at all and we can possibly even have a functional and growing, expanding, greater and better future - is that they are full of individuals. We end up with small looking, or unimportant looking tiny side battles in life that are concurrent to the perceived larger issues or ’battles’. They are, invariably.. a microcosm of the larger more complex ones. Thus, we end up with small things like this having the depth and scope of the larger ones. Fractal/holographic, if you will. In a hologram, that is shattered, a small less resolved analog of the original is expressed in the fraction, no matter how small. Or, if you will..’As above - so below’. Thus, even a small argument/discussion on a audio website can involve/invoke/contain components of the manifold complexities of issues where the world’s problems have to be solved. This is where we arrive at... to even make a functional set of posts in the course of a given discussion on seemingly unimportant matters. The tendrils of belief and expression go where they go and not much can be done about it but to understand that expressive and fulfilling relation generally brings potentials in complexity, in all things. Being boxed in and drawn out by the depth of inclusion of the internet, in our lives, has only exacerbated this normal human relational set of issues. Most importantly, and dangerously, it has put a set of filters in place that many/most are only marginally aware of (consciousness issues in individual level and type) and created a deep capacity for coloration, by others, the ’others’ who control and shape the given ’internet’. |
- 40 posts total