A dissection of insane commenters on a YouTube video
Categories: Playground Bureau, Weird But True, That's Entertainment
What could possibly be more innocent than a laughing baby? According to YouTube commenters, apparently, an awful lot.Slate has a fairly awesome article about this fabulously wheezy Swedish baby who gained Internet notoriety after his father posted a benign video of his son laughing uproariously at a "blong!" noise his father was making. The video has garnered over 45 million views, and over 58,000 comments -- and as the Slate columnist writes, many of them are not just the sweet "lol" and "cute baby!" variety.
As someone who has logged over four years writing on the Internet, I am uncomfortably aware that even the most banal blog subject matter can be twisted into nefarious accusation. But YouTube commenters are an especially unwieldy sort; able to morph even the most benign subject matter into something precarious and highly controversial. The Slate author pokes fun at the adversarial nature of online video commenters, dissecting the laughing baby video commentary into categories: everything from armchair pediatricians to sell-out advice to pure, unadulterated insanity.
It's a refreshing read, especially for heavy social media users. And it reiterates once again, that Internet advice should be taken with a very weighty chunk of salt.
As the Slate author asks: are we laughing at the laughing baby, or is he laughing at us? I tend to believe it's the latter.
Recent Posts
- G.I. Joe, My Little Pony Invading TV With New Children's Network (2/09/2010)
- Movies May Influence Children's Food Choices, Study Shows (2/09/2010)
- Report Cites 220 Cases of D.C. Teachers Abusing Students (2/09/2010)
- Chicago Candidate Drops Out of Race With Tearful Child On Display (2/09/2010)
- Juicy, But Not Juice (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mel 4-19-2008 @ 3:16PM
There is a subsection of inernet writers who write incessantly about commentors. Of course, that attracts a certain degree of "insane" comments, but mostly the confirmation bias operates such that the writer attributes to "trolls" every remark that's less than effusive.
That Slate piece is a pathetic excuse for an article. The writer basically just read through some of the commets and picked out several to copy/paste. It's either extreme writer's block or a complete lack of talent that led to the publication of that piece.
Reply
Uly 4-19-2008 @ 3:34PM
Actually, YouTube is *full* of trolls. The vast majority of comments there are not simply "less than effusive" than outright abusive, illiterate, or both.
Eva 4-19-2008 @ 9:00PM
Well, I thought it was an interesting, fun, and smart article.
squandra 5-01-2008 @ 11:37PM
Mel, you're right. There is a huge difference between a person who post a less-than-effusive comment, and a troll.
I do understand your inclination to ignore the myriad examples of the former being accepted as legitimate discussion, without incident ... Because you are most certainly the latter, and have been received as such.
eugene 4-20-2008 @ 2:39AM
I agree, youtube and other various video posting sites seem to be ground zero for some of the worst people in this world. Trying to make sense of the back and forths in their comments section is like trying to unravel the ravings of a madman.
Reply
pbhj 4-20-2008 @ 11:32AM
>>> Actually, YouTube is *full* of trolls. The vast majority of comments there are not simply "less than effusive" than outright abusive, illiterate, or both.
You moron,if I had half a brain you'd realise that just because they disagrees with you there not a troll. Its' people like you that give teh intarwebs a bad name; won't someone think of the children.
... lololol
[That's supposed to be funny, including the poor spelling/grammar, YMMV]
Reply
Uly 4-20-2008 @ 10:35PM
You don't even come close to the horror that is youtube.