Party Video 2016

[lindanesocialist]

HollyHead wrote:

 I understand that Dave, What I meant to ask is — is it possible for the originator / maker / poster of YouTube videos to disable this feature?

vin saidsee post 117 

[lindanesocialist]

For anyone interested,  here is the link to that horrendous anti working class video my husband spent hours and hours producing instead of giving me the attention I deserve  CRITICISMS WELCOME  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdMi39yr8Q

[Anonymous]

HollyHead wrote:

I understand that Dave, What I meant to ask is — is it possible for the originator / maker / poster of YouTube videos to disable this feature?

With the greatest respect Gwynn, your question has been answered more than once and, I regret to say, is indicative of the disproportionate degree of technical illiteracy that seemingly plagues our organisation.   Before we can presume to 'educate' others we need first to educate ourselves.

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

For anyone interested,  here is the link to that horrendous anti working class video my husband spent hours and hours producing instead of giving me the attention I deserve CRITICISMS WELCOMEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdMi39yr8Q

Well, that's now no longer possible because it's been removed.  Congratulations EC members.

[lindanesocialist]

Vin saidI have had enough of the humiliation for now. There is no way the party will sanction a video produced by me. I am very surprised this thread has not been sent to the rubbish bin or off-topic section with the rest of my opinions   

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Vin saidThere is no way the party will sanction a video produced by me. 

I would venture to suggest that the EC and the party are not necessarily the same – at least I sincerely hope not.

[Sympo]

gnome wrote:

I would venture to suggest that the EC and the party are not necessarily the same – at least I sincerely hope not.

As an outsider may I ask what EC stands for?

[Anonymous]

Sympo wrote:

gnome wrote:

I would venture to suggest that the EC and the party are not necessarily the same – at least I sincerely hope not.

As an outsider may I ask what EC stands for?

Executive Committee – it's elected annually by the party membership, meets monthly and runs the day-to-day affairs of the party in accordance with the rules and democratic decisions agreed by the membership.

[lindanesocialist]

Vin said: Here is one explanation for the video's rejection posted on spintcom.  Alan says he would like a further elaboration on the argument that the video emphasised "an individual rather than a class approach."How about this: [with approximate timings]:The economic system of capitalism has spread to every corner of the planet and [0:30] is dominated by money investment interest profit and markets. But how does that [0:36] affect us as individuals [0:38][Close quote]This is followed by cartoons of a number of individual capitalists [1.12 to 1.17]. (The video even includes a depiction of that cliché of clichés the “fat capitalist”!) Plenty about their big houses and their flash cars but nothing I think about the class nature of capitalist society and the fact that these “privileges” are inherent in the class nature of capitalism and cannot be abolished or reformed away while the system that supports them lasts.Apparently these capitalists are omnipotent. If you are one “you are free to do almost anything you want” [0.44]… “travel anywhere in the world” [0:49]This is the politics of envy and should, in my opinion, play no part in our “propaganda”.  Our case is that minority ownership of the means of life is directly against our interests as a class. Were the capitalist class to become abstemious paragons of virtue would not alter in one jot our objection to their continued existence as a class controling our very existence.The point regarding the uneven distribution of wealth ownership is well made but nothing about how this is maintained by the exercise of political power and the continued support given to it by a majority of our class. Our introductory video should start where our D of P starts by explaining what capitalism is –minority class ownership of the means of life,commodity production,exploitation,class struggle,the need for conscious political action. What the EC had to considered was whether the video adequately presented an introduction to this case for socialism or not.The view of a majority of the EC was that it unfortunately did not. I shall reply to other points raised What about the rest of the video?? Adam Buick, Danny Lambert, Cdes Shodeck and Martin. ? Did they offer an individualist argument? I think they presented the class basis of our case very wellDescribing how individuals earn a living in capitalism can hardly be described as an indivualist analysis. Capitalists  are free  and workers are not freeThe opening sequence was a lead in – an attempt create an interest and to  go on to our case. And even the opening sequence defines the working class as a class forced to sell labour power and the capitalists don't have to?They are free. I suspect the opening sequence was viewed at and the connection somehow faltered !This review of the video is a travesty

[lindanesocialist]

By the way the bold to seperate the Answer  from the question. Trouble formating.

[HollyHead]

gnome wrote:

HollyHead wrote:

I understand that Dave, What I meant to ask is — is it possible for the originator / maker / poster of YouTube videos to disable this feature?

With the greatest respect Gwynn, your question has been answered more than once and, I regret to say, is indicative of the disproportionate degree of technical illiteracy that seemingly plagues our organisation.   Before we can presume to 'educate' others we need first to educate ourselves.

 With the greatest respect Dave it hasn't. Perhaps it's me not putting the question clearly enough. So let me try again:Supposing I want to post a video on YouTube (or similar), and supposing I wish to ensure that no transcription be available to anyone viewing the video when it is posted — is there anyway I (as poster) can ensure that a transcription is not available to viewers? Or is it a feature imposed on video makers and posters by the YouTube organisation? 

[jondwhite]

Youtube call it 'automatic captioning' an it is based on speech recognition which is renowned for being unreliable and yes, it can be turned off by whoever uploaded the video, and even viewers can choose not to have it displayed whilst watching the video.https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6373554?hl=enYoutube call turning it off 'unpublishing'.There is nothing stopping anyone manually transcribing the video in the traditional way themselves though.Would this dodgy automatic transcription really be the stated reason EC have taken a dim view of the video?

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Youtube call it 'automatic captioning' an it is based on speech recognition which is renowned for being unreliable and yes, it can be turned off by whoever uploaded the video, and even viewers can choose not to have it displayed whilst watching the video.https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6373554?hl=enYoutube call turning it off 'unpublishing'.There is nothing stopping anyone manually transcribing the video in the traditional way themselves though.

Thanks for explaining that, Jon; saves me doing it.

Quote:

Would this dodgy automatic transcription really be the stated reason EC have taken a dim view of the video?

When the video was shown to the EC the 'automatic captioning' had been disabled with Vin having provided his own subtitles. Unfortunately a majority of EC members (5 out of the 7 present) had not watched the video prior to the meeting despite all EC members having received the link to it a week before. Therefore, under that circumstance and due to the poor internet connection at the time the video could not and did not receive a fair viewing.  The decision of the majority to disown the video was therefore based largely on misconception, misapprehension and a preconceived opposition because of its origin.

[HollyHead]

jondwhite wrote:

Youtube call it 'automatic captioning' an it is based on speech recognition which is renowned for being unreliable and yes, it can be turned off by whoever uploaded the video, and even viewers can choose not to have it displayed whilst watching the video.https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6373554?hl=enYoutube call turning it off 'unpublishing'.There is nothing stopping anyone manually transcribing the video in the traditional way themselves though.Would this dodgy automatic transcription really be the stated reason EC have taken a dim view of the video?

 Thanks Jon — that's the explanation I was looking for. And no the dodgy transcription did not effect my opinion on the suitability of the video as an "official" Party publication.I can't speak for other members of the Executive Committee who voted against endorsement.

[Anonymous]

HollyHead wrote:

And no the dodgy transcription did not effect my opinion on the suitability of the video as an "official" Party publication.I can't speak for other members of the Executive Committee who voted against endorsement.

So what did affect your opinion?  I think those who voted against the video's endorsement owe the membership some explanation to assist them in reaching a better understanding of the thought processes taking place in the minds of EC members.

[Author]

Posts