Videos

18300 readers

284 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
Don't be a jerk
No advertising
No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
Duplicate posts may be removed
AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Flutter@lemmy.world

Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world

can@sh.itjust.works

qaz@lemmy.world

qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone

qaz@sh.itjust.works

-1

[Video Essay] How “This Didn’t Age Well” Destroyed Media Literacy (www.youtube.com)

submitted 1 week ago by scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech to c/videos@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a great rundown of the phenomenon of the triangle of Ethical Media Consumption, Virtue Signalling, and what the author has coined "Virtue Mirroring".

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

She touches on one that I see very often here on Lemmy, where she distinguishes behavior around the two, and as the example she uses Harry Potter. That by knowing that Rowling uses her money in anti trans cases that it presents a moral problem. Her concept of "Virtue Mirroring" is the idea that you should not enjoy Harry Potter at all simply because of Rowling's beliefs, vs Ethical Media Consumption which says that if you want to be ethical then you cannot buy Harry Potter products, as you know that will be used in ways that you disagree with.

It's a good essay that I've enjoyed. I think we're too quick to throw away older media because it "didn't age well" or because someone involved ended up being horrible. That it's not immoral to pull out a DVD of a Weinstein film, or to re-read Harry Potter, but separating that going out and subscribing to watch the new Harry Potter is against Ethical Media Consumption. I really like that distinction, because it is perfectly okay to say you enjoyed Harry Potter, and rewatch the movies that you own, and do what you enjoy, while also having the nuance and critical awareness that you also cannot purchase anything with the brand on it.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that's not unique to lemmy. the flood of "i actually never liked them" whenever bad shit comes out about a public figure is usually deafening.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair point, I've also experienced that elsewhere. When really it's okay to have enjoyed it, but be aware now on purchasing new items.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 week ago

i think for many people, their own newfound ick for a person who has turned out to be (for lack of a better word) problematic sours their earlier works. some people then do post hoc rationalisation for that ick ("i never liked them"), and a subset of those people (mostly those with no internality) apply their experience universally ("i never liked them so if you did you're weird") and get real loud about it.

i'm going to continue assuming it's a very small vocal minority. easier to stay sane that way.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I have been a media literacy advocate for decades, and believe it is a life and death issue for the planet. This is a decent take on media consumption principles. Your consumption habits put you into a web of relations.

There are some cases where revelations about a creator retcon their entire body of work, usually when it involves a fundamental falsehood in their artistic posture.

The are rare, but a premier example would be Buffy St. Marie: her music is generally imbued with a proclamation of her identity and the reveal that it was a massive, sixty year fraud makes her amazing songwriting and performances just unlistenable, as long as you are aware it's a lie being pushed in your ears.

I'm happy to listen to an artist who's a massive jerk, because most famous people are anyway. If M.I.A. is a brain damaged magatroid, whatever, she's not getting anything from me and her first album is full of bangers.

I buy CDs directly from artists I want to support. SNRK just got $60 from me and I bought two poetry books yesterday. Otherwise, corporate publishers and famous dorks with good art are going to get their stuff pirated.