User-generated content has changed the fabric of the World Wide Web and, consequentially, the makeup of society

in general. It is useful to define user-generated content (UGC) as: online media created by Internet users. The Internet has become an interface where millions of people interact instantly using video, audio, text and images. This rapid circulation of ideas is a relatively new phenomenon, the effects of which have drawn much attention. Critics assert UGC is a catalyst for unreliable information, manufactured almost entirely by the misinformed, unaccountable public. Internet enthusiasts claim it is their constitutional right to express themselves. In this essay I plan on comparing a YouTube video titled Hitler gets banned from Xbox Live with a newspaper article from the Globe and Mail titled Night of Broken Glass. I will first discuss whether the medium is the message in both pieces of content. Then, after investigating how the two types of media deal with the topic and the affects they have on public understanding, I will examine / review the sociological significance of each piece of media with respect to the Hawthorne Effect. Starting with an overview of the previously mentioned piece of online user-generated content, this YouTube video is a subtitled parody of a scene taken from Downfall (2004), a German WWII drama based on Hitlers last ten days and eventual suicide. In that scene, he receives word of a failed counterattack on the Russians, which means the demise of the German military and the end of the war. In the parody, Hitler becomes enraged when he receives word that his modified console has been detected by Microsoft and banned from Xbox Live. The seriousness with which both Hitler and the other characters treat this painfully minor issue, as well as the perceived availability of a video game console during WWII, make for a humorous segment.

The Globe and Mail article was focused on the night of November 9, 1938, also known as the Night of Broken Glass. In response to the assassination of German diplomat Ernst von Rath by a Jewish youth, Herschel Grynszpan, Hitler would seek retribution from all Jews. Ever since they assumed power in 1933, Hitler, Goebbels, Streicher and company have been preparing for this nightall they needed was a proper occasion, an emotional pretext.(Plaut) Hitler unleashed the military and paramilitary forces of the SS and SA upon Germany and Austria, burning homes and synagogues while assaulting and arresting thousands of Jews. The author mentions that he was married on that same November evening and reflects on how a night that brought him so much happiness also brought unspeakable agony to so many other people. In the Globe and Mail article the medium is in fact that message. McLuhan defined the medium as the extension of ones self that brings about change in the form of an idea or innovation. The message is the resultant effect(s) of experiencing that idea or innovation. xxx Empathy, distaste and sadness are effects of this experience and, therefore, parts of the message. The medium is essentially the article itself. The theme around which Night of Broken Glass was written offers few alternative messages or effects of experience than previously noted. Evidently the medium is the message in this article. The YouTube video is, at first glance, the medium. It is the idea or innovation that produced the effect(s). However we can go one step further in saying that the subtitles are the medium, since there are so many elements in this parody, each producing it own message. The fact that there was no such thing as Xbox Live in WWII creates humour in the message. It is funny, in one sense, that Hitler gets banned from Xbox Live and has a temper tantrum over it. The message is comedy, something people can, and do, laugh at. On the other hand, an unintended but probably

anticipated effect of this medium is contempt towards this kind of humour. Realistically speaking, events of holocaustic magnitudes are without facets of humour. The message to a person of Jewish descent, for instance, might be that YouTube is making fun of Jewish genocide. This video is unique in that the medium is not necessarily the message, as the message varies in interpretation from person to person. These two pieces of content deal with the same topic from different ends of the media spectrum, a reliable, peer reviewed article and a funny YouTube video with user-generated subtitles. Where subject matter is concerned, the YouTube video parody has nothing to do with the Night of Broken Glass, although the movie segment featured is a dramatic representation of that significant moment in history. Most people have never seen Downfall, so they have no idea where this scene comes from, or the historical moment it was originally meant to express. The Globe and Mail article, on the other hand, has an air of formal repulse for the atrocity of the Nazi Occupation. The author expresses frustration, warranted by the delay with which the rest of the world reacted to Kristallnacht as well as the horrors those people experienced. The Globe and Mail article delivers factual perspective. The major difference here is the scholarly, politically correct newspaper article versus the user-generated, arguably insensitive YouTube video. Each type of media has a unique reputation. There is an invisible set of expectations for each source as well as a varying level of trust that helps regulate each presentation. Immersed in an academic community that maintains boundaries of accountability, a serious writer is obligated or bound to be appropriate, credible and politically correct. As result, reading this article brings about an emotional reflex, a natural demand for empathy, where the reader is engaged in a very sympathetic, compassionate way. Being a reputable newspaper, the Globe and Mail demands the

socially expected feelings of sympathy and/or scorn, whereas the function of this YouTube video is comedy, putting a humorous spin on realistically saddening subject matter. The creators of such parodies are not reputable, nor are they accountable for the effects of messages sent by these videos. This gives them a sort of peace of mind. YouTube is a place where we are able to express ourselves openly and without consequence. As result, this type of media bears a reputation of loose morality that is now expected among its viewers. YouTube has an almost opposite level of credibility and trust than the Globe and Mail, and so a totally different set of expectations regulate a viewers experiences. The differences between these mediums are products of the same sociological concept. Take into consideration the Hawthorne Effect. A persons behaviour in a classroom setting under the keen eye of a teacher may differ from his demeanour in a circle of close friends or in another more relaxed environment. However, those behavioural changes, or fluvial personality modifications, are common in every social interaction. It is useful, then, to define the Hawthorne Effect as a change in behaviour stimulated by the realization of by whom a person is being observed. A study of doctors in developing countries investigated the gap between a doctors best possible practice and actual performance. The study found that there was indeed a gap between actual performance and performance with knowledge of being observed. When a researcher arrives every doctor practises to the best of his ability and after time has passed every doctor returns to his normal level of ability.(Leonard) It seems appropriate to point out that everyone is subject to the Hawthorne Effect, including authors of newspaper articles and producers of online

UGC. They are affected differently by their knowledge of being observed, based on who the anticipated observers are. These effects control content more than we may think. Plauts article is a product of not only his beliefs, but more importantly the anticipated effects his beliefs will have on others. Knowledge of his peers reviewing his work acts as a regulator for quality, effort and the overall message of his piece. An ideal article in his mind appeases as many of these regulations as possible, while satisfying his own. The result is an engaging, politically correct, morally sound article. Therefore his colleagues, superiors and critics contributed to the writing of his article as much as he did. In online UGC the Hawthorne Effect is at work in an entirely different way. Although the user may consider the opinions of others when sharing or creating content, professional obligations and accountability are absent. A newspaper without editors and the creative limits of professionalism is not a newspaper at all, but a journal or collection of opinions and unchecked facts. YouTube is a similar environment as it exists with few limits. Users are free to express whatever they feel. The observers are usually ordinary people whose criticisms dont carry real weight in the mind of the creator of the video. With the exception of subscription pages and a series of videos called a channel to which other users can subscribe, there is no loyalty or standard that needs to be met in generating content. This reality fosters the unregulated aspect of the Hawthorne Effect where, absent an overseer or mode of authority, users can interact in any way they choose. In conclusion, UGC is unique in allowing anyone to circulate ideas freely and instantly. Sceptics argue that this phenomenon is or eventually will be more damaging to society than helpful. Unreliable content may affect the minds of its consumers negatively or incorrectly and,

since the consumers are also the producers, the general public may be at risk on an intellectual level. Karl Marx talked about the gap between the means and the relations of production. He feared that conflict of interest would obstruct technological advancement. In this case, the means is the Internet and UGC. The relations of production are massive corporations that are negatively affected. Newspaper sales are falling; Hollywood and the music industry lose millions every year to illegal downloads and online streaming. The war between corporate media giants and Silicon Valley will come to an unforeseeable end. The only thing we know for certain is it will not be the end of user-generated content on the Internet.