As you can probably tell, I'm feeling just spiffy today, so its time to spread the love.
For those of you out there that aren't convinced that Mark Zuckerburg is the e-Satan, he's doing more to try make sure that you do. Facebook now is more than just about who you are and what you are doing, it wants to know where you are. In a creepy new application if you go somewhere, like to the movies, you can "check in" meaning your "friends" will know where you are. I say "friends" because really if you put anything on Facebook you can count on the whole world knowing. To make things even more creepy other people can sign you into places. So if you're out playing miniature golf with someone and they decide that want to 'check in' where they are on Facebook, and you're Facebook friends with them, they can check you in too.
Of course, you can go into your own Facebook account to make sure your settings prevent such things from happening. Doing so requires knowing exactly where to look, what to do, and the blood sacrifice of a puppy. For those that don't know, the privacy default settings on everything on Facebook is "public" meaning everyone can see it.
The Missus was looking a picture on Facebook and sure enough there a bunch of people doing what most people are doing in Facebook pictures, drinks. The names of the people popped up as she scrolled over there names. Now, I'm for those in the picture drinking and having a good time I'm sure they're fondly thinking about that good time and think its just neat-o that their name pops up when they scroll over their image in a picture. Yeah, because facial recognition software is just giggles and kittens.
If the Government wanted to know who you are, what you are doing, and where you are all the time people would be up in arms. It sounds like something out of a dystopian future sci-fi story. But people are lining up like lemmings and volunteering this information out without any regard for who might see it and how it could be used against them. I'm seeing stories in the news about people getting fired from their jobs because of things they posted on their Facebook and things that were meant to be private jokes among a small group end up in the hands of employers. This is a site run by a guy who truly feels like the concept of privacy in the 21st century with all of our new communications tech is outmoded.
Oh and if you have a Facebook account and this piece got you rethinking it wisdom in having one, have fun hunting down the option to delete your account (and remember deleting and deactivating the account are two different things), and also enjoy the two week waiting period until that account actually deactivates. Be prepared to explain to your friends on there why you "unfriended" them.
A new study tells me that there's some people on YouTube making some pretty good money. This study lists there top ten earners on YouTube who make original content and they're all making six figures. However, this list is complete crap from top to bottom.
They took some of the most followed people on YouTube, the folks that you usually find having their videos featured when you go to the site. They took the average number of views. Removed 2% assuming assuming that the number of people who click away before they have a chance to click on any ads that generate money. Then they divide that number by half assuming that's about the right number of folks who click on ads. Then they multiply by X number of dollars assuming that's how much money they generate per click on ads. There you have it. Assumption math. You know what you get when you use math based off of so many assumptions? YOU HAVE A FUCKING GUESS! This entire list is based on speculation which is based off of too few facts to have a prayer of being remotely accurate. And this stupid thing made the Yahoo news role. I actually saw it before that, but was so mind shriveling stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously.
And there I go again underestimating the stupidity of those responsible for the news.
They didn't even bother actually finding the top ten people on YouTube who make original content in terms of views. They just picked ten popular people whose view count generated six figures when they applied their voodoo math. They also went on to say that many of these people have multiple channels because they are so popular that they need a channel "to just be themselves". Look. I have multiple blogs. I have this one here for my articles and essays. I have another one for my fiction. Why split it? Because this isn't a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and no one wants my chocolate getting mixed with my peanut butter. Same thing with YouTube. You have people generating content, but they like to make videos and share themselves with their viewers. So you split it for the sake of consistency. Maybe some of the people who enjoy the short film they produce don't really want to watch videos about their lives, or the making of the videos.
And now the backlash has begun with scores of people asking questions and making comments to the people on the list. Philip Defranco has already addressed it briefly in a video, and said the same thing I have in that these estimates are "way off". Natalie Tran addressed it on her Twitter account:
All I try to do, and did before adsense or any of that, is make content independently for people to watch and enjoy. Even though what I do is "new" to a lot of people, it doesn't mean it's not impolite to ask me what I make or publish estimated income in the news.
Tran is a very clever woman with a very thick skin. You have to be thick skinned when you post stuff on YouTube, because when you generate the sizable following she has there's going to be no shortage of people who give you grief or get weird over you. She's also absolutely correct. None of these people were contacted about being on the list. Now certainly they've achieved a certain level of fame and that chips away at privacy, but that doesn't mean we need to know everything about them and they business.
The media love to tell us how much money people make. Part of me things its jealousy. The writers see that somebody is making a bunch of money, or in this case assumes they are, and they put it our there. Sure, any advertising is good advertising, when you have people out doing want they love they probably don't want people giving them grief for how much money they make doing it. All this did is give they detractors more spitballs to launch at them. It reminds me very much of when a nasty money-grubbing faction of the church I work out in decided they wanted to squeeze me for more money. They were assuming I was charging a lot more than I actually was, assumed I had a lot more students than I actually did, and assumed that I was making a ton more money than I actually was. That group was led by a big old liberal too, and you know if a liberal thinks you're making profit then you need to give it away. "OMG I can't people you're actually making money on something you like doing!" Same mentality as those who published the article, only with yes venom. They don't want the money, they just want to "expose" those who make it.
Its a crap article, based on shoddy research. I'm going over to YouTube now to go watch Philly D's Vloggity now.
Rounding out the week of Muppet music for Linda's Birthday we've got a song not by the Muppets, but its a favorite of mine and there's Muppets afoot. It's nerd rock time!!
That's is for today. I'd promice to be less venomous for Wednesday, but I'm not a politician and don't promise things I know I can't deliver. See y'all then.