We shape our buildings; therefore, they shape us.

(That is a quote by Winston Churchill.)

As I mentioned in my very first post, I argue that vlogging is the product of a system. Now that all the pieces are together, let me make all the connections.

First of all, it is important to note that the period from 2001 to 2005 was a very important time for vlogs.

The iPod was created in 2001, allowing for the growth of the podcast, which then allowed for the jump towards video blogging.

2005 is also the important year in which Youtube was released, allowing for a broadcasting mentality that lets users broadcast themselves. Remember, the video technology was already there, but people had to look at it from a different angle in order for the vlogging community to grow. Youtube definitely recognized this amateur-hobbyist aspect of video technology.

The Creative Commons movement started during this period and grew. This backlash against current intellectual-property-right laws tries to motivate a culture with more freedom of information while still inspiring people to create their own works. In turn, it also allowed for an easier legal platform to spread and build culture. A simple license seems to have a reach beyond the scope of the license owners.

The vlog now enables people to connect to each other and spread their content all across the globe. Where you live is no longer a problem, and when you post is no longer a problem. Notions of space and time become obsolete because you can post your vlog online, and people can view it from anywhere else (provided that they have access to the internet in the first place and provided that your country of residence lets you go to such websites). Combine it with the power of social networking utilities like Facebook or Twitter, and you can show your video to everyone and anyone.

While there are all of these advantages, it is important to remember that everyone should still make real social connections. The state of mentality that we can all connect and become part of an online community with voice and facial familiarities seems to make the physical body a bit less real, creating a sort of social shortcut. Video-editing software lets vloggers filter what they want people to see, and along similar lines, trust is not one-hundred percent guaranteed. The level of expertise that a person has is not clearly defined, and in a way, it can displace professionals in institutionalized settings.

If you read this article about the Nike+, they mention an idea called the Hawthorne effect--“The gist of the idea is that people change their behavior—often for the better—when they are being observed”, and it is true that vloggers are constantly being observed. Perhaps the endless amount of feedback causes vloggers to make more and better videos. It seems as though it becomes the vloggers’ choice to make them, but because they can build a fan base with vlogs, being recognized then builds trust to an audience that vloggers do not really know. Vloggers themselves become part of this cybernetic system, and it can become hard to get detached from such technology.

All in all, however, try your hand at broadcasting yourself, and see how it goes.

As Kranzberg’s First Law of technology states, “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” (p. 545).