Is the argument against video on photo-sharing site Flickr a logistical one? That it will slow down the experience? If so, deep under a mountain in a cold northern land:
Is it philosophical? Is the juxtaposition of two visual media somehow a negation of or to the detrement of either? Is it political in some way? I can see how it might be, but what exactly would signatories to the Anti-Video petition be putting their names to?
I understand that pro users have a lot invested in Flickr. A Pro account is almost a one-way street. - or so it seems to me. And I can see why they feel aggrieved when, as unofficial shareholders, their company radically alters policy. What are Flickr's stated reasons for doing this? Does Yahoo's flirtations with the Pearly Gates' mob have anything to do with it? Especially now, when Microsoft's breath is heavier than ever down Yahhoo's neck.
If Flickr is determined to ostracise its pro base, then there are many, many alternatives. And maybe the end of the Flickr hegemony is no bad thing. People may decide to target and exhibit their work differently. Is it so terrible that Flickr is diversifying? How will it get in the way? Who will be forcing anyone to watch videos? Is this a new form of media Puritanism? Surely the internet itself is all the evidence needed that the distinctions between the traditional media are obsolete? That the material and financial reasons for those distinctions do not apply online?
This should be interesting to watch, especially as the Flickr community isn't exactly solid on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment here. Naturally, all comments are reviewed before publishing.