One of the major elements of Web 2.0 is that sites can leverage user-created content. Users can create articles, forum postings, reviews, videos, photos, or anything else you can imagine, and post them to the site. Other users can enhance this content by tagging it, by rating it, or just by viewing it (to build a popularity ranking). The site acts as platform and facilitator, and watches the advertising dollars roll in. This is a great business model when it works, and the users, though usually not compensated, derive enjoyment from both their contributions of content and viewing those made by other users. One site format that has grown in popularity recently is video sharing, in which users can post videos and other users can rate, tag, or comment on them. The Red Tape Chronicles blog, in Gruesome Stunts, Risky Pranks Mar Video Sites, points out the dark underbelly of the explosion in user-created content - in some cases, they are motivated to behave in a way that is dangerous. The blog post, based on an investigation by MSNBC.com, describes some of the incredibly risky (and, dare we say, stupid) stunts users have attempted to get their 15 minutes of video fame.
One video shows a young man putting on a banana suit, dousing it in lighter fluid, igniting, and apparently badly burning his face. In another video the subject nearly blows his hand off with a dry ice bomb. Individuals, often young people, are motivated to try increasingly risky stunts to get the attention of a jaded audience.
Interestingly, Web 2.0 features drive this phenomenon in a couple of ways. First, enabling users to post content with few restrictions or editorial control encourages video creators to pursue outrageous concepts. Second, video sites are often popularity driven - the most viewed videos are highlighted as “Movers and Shakers”, “Top Ten Videos”, etc. To hit these lists, a video has to be particularly compelling - in the case of stunt videos, that means more dangerous, with apparent injury a major plus. The more gruesome the result, the more likely it is that the video will “go viral” and achieve high viewership.
Some video sites attempt to screen out violent or dangerous content; YouTube.com falls into that group. Break.com, however, seems to encourage it by holding contests. Google Video claims to view each video submitted before posting. Sooner or later, one of these sites will get sued for a copycat video stunt gone wrong. If I operated a video site, I’d have my lawyers fine tune my disclaimers with a lot of care, and I’d learn from previous targets like MTV’s Jackass. One or two successful suits could rein in the stunt video phenomenon, at least on mainstream sites.
A number of the comments on the Red Tape blog post find a bright side to these risky stunt videos: Darwinian improvement of the gene pool. 
Add this post to: del.icio.us - Digg it - Stumble it - Furl - Yahoo MyWeb No Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>