. /../The YouTube Debates.../ 1
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jul 24, 2007 04:19
The YouTube Debates: Historic? Or Hysteric?
18 members voted in this poll so far
Historical
Desperately Needs Improvements
Hysterical
What YouTube Debates?
What's YouTube?
You have all likely heard of the YouTube Debates, even if you don't live in the U.S.

The whole gist is that now the world is turning into an eDemocracy or iDemocracy or MyDemocracy or YouDemocracy or Wikimocracy via the Internet.... or is it? I mean, a direct democracy via the Internet doesn't sound that far-fetched, but this YouTube debate doesn't make the cut. Sorry CNN, "historic" is not something this should be called.

First off, the whole thing isn't over the Internet. Apparently, you can go ahead to YouTube (a brilliant website, I like it, but I don't like how the debates were handled) and find the questions, all 2989 of them. But then wait, only 39 made it to the debate because CNN had to cut some out because of this or that or whatever. You can go watch the questions in all their hilarity/seriousness, but the fact remains that the actual ANSWERS remain hidden. It's annoying as hell and is basically the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the other way around.

I was expecting, of course, to go to YouTube and see the candidates' answers... but no. I would have to go "CHANNEL 567 ON SUNDAY 7:37 AM EST!!!!!11!1" and watch it, which takes away the "e" in "eDemocracy" part that everyone fantasizes about.

Of course, the answers could be on YouTube, but if they are, CNN has done a terribly good job at keeping them away from easy reach.

Another thing, besides seeing photos of the debate, which was all blue and shiny and generally bright and wasteful, I noticed that it was in Charleston, South Carolina. My question is this: WHY is an INTERNET debate taking place in a SINGULAR location? The whole point of it being over the INTERNET is so that we don't have to turn on the TV at a certain time of the day to watch a bunch of people sitting together in the same room talking about U.S. Presidential Politics whilst making casual comments about how the pretty lady on their lefts' jacket is like.

Also, they make this debate seem more personal than it really is. They make it seem like you're talking to the candidates over your webcam, but no. It's a sort of mail-your-question-to-Santa kind of thing. They make this seem like a great advance, yet it was, and still is, perfectly possible (and indeed less time consuming and more efficient) to hold a more personal debate over the radio, where people would call and ask questions to candidates (who would or would not be at the same place), who would then answer the questions live, whilst the caller was still on the air (not to mention the ability to listen to debates you've missed by downloading their sound files off the net).

Of course, CNN would never allow such a thing because a great deal of its people believe that radio, particularly AM radio, and particularly AM talk radio, is filled with "bigots" that CNN does not wish the public to be corrupted by.

My point is this: The YouTube Debates were undoubtedly a movement forward to a direct democracy via the Internet, but it was to regulated and too impersonal to be any more than a little tiny, unnoticeable sneaky-sneaky tip-toe sonic-alarm-fooling infinitesimally insignificant small smudge of an inch forward.
rawr
written by Raptorjedi on Jul 24, 2007 04:32
The wonderful thing about the internet is someone recorded that debate and put it up for all to see anyway. I'm interested in seeing what Barack Obama had to say in response to those questions.

Edit: Also, the debates were between candidates (I assume ), since isn't that what all the presidential debates are? So really all this did was let the people ask the questions instead of some dork in a suit writing them up the night before
written by Chad on Jul 24, 2007 04:38
Is it that time again? Man... Good thing I don't deal in this political crap. Neutral all the way! ^_^
rawr
written by Raptorjedi on Jul 24, 2007 04:50
I'm actually going to get out and vote this time. I've been watching the videos Barack Obama puts up on Youtube, and sometimes reading the news about him, and he's going to be the person I vote for. I think he's going to be a great president.
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jul 24, 2007 16:35
Chad said:
Is it that time again? Man... Good thing I don't deal in this political crap. Neutral all the way! ^_^
Well actually, it's not.... hell it's not even 2008 yet. I don't remember the last two election races starting so early.

I'm not sure about Obama.... he's had only a couple years in the Senate. Plus, he's a Democrat and I sort of lean towards the right a bit more.

PS- I forgot to add an option to the poll like "Not from the U.S." I'm sure a lot of you aren't from the U.S. and don't really care much about elections here.
written by Ssfsx17 on Jul 28, 2007 15:56
Even if you're not from the U.S., other countries are starting to catch on to Youtube. Tony Blair, for instance, used it for a few official speeches.
the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jul 28, 2007 17:59
Geekofdeath said:
Chad said:
Is it that time again? Man... Good thing I don't deal in this political crap. Neutral all the way! ^_^
Well actually, it's not.... hell it's not even 2008 yet. I don't remember the last two election races starting so early.
That's because evryone is so damn eager to get he-who-shall-not-be-named out of office xD. Never should've been there in the first place, but that's another story . Oh, and for the record, as it stands, the US is NOT a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy because our nation is too damned big. Not to mention the electoral college. *rolls eyes*. I do hate what this country has become...

I can just picture all the fat people sitting in front of their webcams going 'Oh yeaz I TtLY matTer to tis cuntreez foocher!'. No you don't, none of us make a difference because we can't because no one's listening cause they're all caught up in their own ideas that no one else will listen to. And again, there's too many of us under one entity (The government)

*sighs* that's all folks.
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jul 29, 2007 21:40
There is only one problem with a direct democracy besides the fact that the country is so big.

The problem is that a lot of the people in said country are so dumb. Of course, there are a lot more smarter (meaning smarter, not necessarily smart) people (I sincerely hope), but not to many have the knowledge to make smart decisions about healthcare, taxes and all this necessary, but nonetheless unavoidable garbage. In fact, probably a lot of people aren't so sure those who are "qualified" are up to it either.
glyph poet
written by Nalix on Jul 29, 2007 23:07
I'd be a lot more comfortable with our government if Congress actually read the laws it passes. I mean, isn't that part of the job? It seems to me almost like signing a blank check, and they do it routinely. That is was scares me.
written by Stellanaut on Jul 30, 2007 05:59
The U.S. is considered a democratic republic, but is functionally a republic that appears to have traits of democracy (although some inner workings may resemble a system of oligarchy). I agree that there really are too many idiots, but some would argue that the current U.S. president has an intellect on the scale of (or less than) said idiots. Also, under a system of more direct democracy, people might have greater incentives to become more educated. Personally, I think that the youtube videos aren't going to be a pivotal factor (and I also hope that the next president actually does a better job).
rawr
written by Raptorjedi on Jul 30, 2007 07:31
You would be surprised how much change people bring about. I really kinda hate seeing the "You don't make a difference" stuff, because most of the people who say that aren't DOING anything in the first place. So apathy is a bigger problem in the US than idiocy.
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jul 30, 2007 11:44
Nalix said:
I'd be a lot more comfortable with our government if Congress actually read the laws it passes.
I'm more worried about the people ("the people" is a phrase that has been overused over the course of history.... can't they find something more original?) not reading what Congress passes. I haven't read one myself (see?), but I heard it's like reading a television advertisement, all that fine print and word play. The only difference being that you don't have to read everything quick before it disappears.
written by Stellanaut on Jul 30, 2007 18:25
Raptorjedi said:
You would be surprised how much change people bring about. I really kinda hate seeing the "You don't make a difference" stuff, because most of the people who say that aren't DOING anything in the first place. So apathy is a bigger problem in the US than idiocy.
I agree, things would change very quick if the people acted in unison, but unfortunately apathy, in the situation you mentioned it in, is perpetuating a self-fufilling prophecy.
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../The YouTube Debates.../ 1
39859, 10 queries, 0.091 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network