The video posted by Slate V mocks Twitter's attempt at reducing the size of online blogging to their acclaimed 'micro-blogging' status by mimicking this trend and creating 'Flutter,' a world where 26 characters represents the maximum post, or 'flap.' The video targets the commonly complained about features of Twitter by hyperbolizing them: the number of characters allowed, the privacy issues of location-based tweets, and the need to have Twitter available at all times.
The creator of this video does not have an airtight argument, however. Slate makes the assumption that viewers understand that the video is a mockumentary, as it is never explicitly stated that the video is not advertising a real 'nanoblogging' website. Unfortunately, this may not always be the case, and viewers could develop a strange opinion of Slate because of the video. Also, Slate makes the assumption that Twitter is a negative form of digital technology. Many people value Twitter for its availability of short, breaking news updates, its ability to develop fan-based connections with musicians, actors, and comedians, and its easily understood format. Finally, Slate assumes that there would be no interest in a site like Flutter. However, in the age of quickly developing technology, there could be a migration of users to a site that promoted shortened forms of tweets, leading the Internet into uncharted territory: picoblogging.
I think it is a good thing that the makers of the video don't explicitly state that the video is a parody, because if they did it would lose much of its comedic element. Personally, when the drastic over exaggerations finally caused me to realize the video was a joke, it amplified the comedic effect that much more. Also, I feel that the legitimate feel of the video and its sarcasm help get the point across better. Instead of the makers of the video telling you "this is what we believe," they allow the viewer to infer the argument from the sarcasm, which will increase the likelihood of the viewer believing the argument, since it is something they inferred themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think you have started off well by concisely stating what the video is targetting.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with some of the points you have made. Like you mentioned, there could indeed be some watchers who does not understand the satire of this video and misunderstand the argument it is making. If informing the watchers that this is a parody at the beginning lessens the effect of the video, I think they could have at least stated the "truth" at the end of the video.
However, I doubt that there could be any need to have "picoblogging" in the future. Evidently, Twitter is already being criticized in many ways, so I do not think anyone would attempt to take Twitter to the next step. Even if something like Flutter do emerge in the future, many people will find it impractical and will cease to use.
For the most part, I strongly agree with your argument. The creators of this parody assumed that viewers would agree with them; thinking that Twitter is a useless form of technology and that an even smaller version of blogging would be even more ridiculous. Certainly some people do hold value in Twitter, otherwise it wouldn't be as popular as it is today. However, every argument has two sides. This one is no exception. Some people will likely agree with the claim made in the Flutter video, others will not. It's simply the people that are in agreement with their view who will find this clip humorous, and I think that the video creators would expect some opposition.
ReplyDelete