NOTES: Origins and Context | See Also
[ X ]
Origins of this content
This article was first published on paper by Cinema Journal and then was redesigned for publication on the Internet by IJLM, in part, because Cinema Journal was not yet technically capable of going online except in the most rudimentary ways (posting the article as a pdf). The writing was developed in 2008 as I attempted to pen concise, systematic lessons from the output and experiences of LFYT 2007.
Mrs. Hyatt's "Summary Power Point": "delete redundant material. delete redundant material. delete redundant material."[cit]

Hacking philosophy: "We believe everyone should have free access to all information. Hacking should not be a privileged skill—everyone should have the opportunity to learn about computer security in this age of internet enlightenment ... We want to promote the usage of hacking as a tool to fight for social justice causes. Hacking is justified if it is used to combat oppression, censorship or inequality."[cit]

One of my ten founding terms for this project is pedagogy. Also understood as a matter of access, it is always necessary to consider who is taught to be a mediamaker and with what orientation, skills, and values; and who is taught to be critical of the media, as well.
[ X ]
More videos related to the content of this page
(This article was first published at IJLM and Cinema Journal.)

Unlike the punks of yore, in the LFYT class we burrowed within the corporate system, respecting its rules and limitations, all the while repurposing its aims and using its vernacular to engage in its analysis. We learned that it is hard to learn from YouTube. Its architecture and ownership undermine the fundamentals of academic inquiry and higher education: depth of dialogue, capability to find and link data, ability to sustain intimate and committed community, and structures of order and discipline.

However, we did learn new forms for academic exchange based on the concise summary of complex ideas expressed through words, sounds, and images and open to the public.

Obviously, YouTube didn't care. There's ample room for NicheTube critiques in its unruly pages. Yet, while corporations dominate YouTube—and their directives organize decisions about its structure, applications, forms, and provenance—everyday DIY users do have a voice within its pages, and we need to make our demands for a radical (punk?) public technological culture clear.

Corporations control nearly everything in our society, but that doesn't mean that they should, nor that they are the best suited to choose all that we need from new technology.

It's true: punk's long dead. It's the era of Web 2.0, and so I prefer to rethink the lessons of Learning from YouTube as a series of successful hacks at one site that allowed us to better understand it and to speak what we learned on its terrain, and in its own terms.