"As a talent show, YouTube is the polar opposite of American Idol." –Sam Anderson, writing in Slate.
He means that narrowly—the article's about lip-syncing—but there's a greater truth there. American Idol is a democracy, or at least maintains the trappings of a democracy, which is all we really ask of our democracies these days. The public is presented with a set of suitably middle-of-the-road nominees—the William Hungs have been weeded out long before the balloting begins—and then the audience votes on who's the best. YouTube and Google Video work on a more decentralized, market-like principle: If you think something's entertaining, you send it to someone. Rather than winnowing a cast to a single singer inoffensive enough to be all America's idol, we let the stars emerge from below, collecting fans one e-mail or blog link at a time. Which do you suppose offers more surprises, more variety, and more honest-to-God talent?
YouTube, by the way, is supposed to be a part of "Web 2.0." I ought to be a cheerleader for Web 2.0, since its boosters keep saying things I was writing six years ago, but I have trouble getting behind anything with a name that practically screams "Hate me—I'm a buzzword-spouting charlatan." Suggestion to entrepreneurs: Just call it "the Internet." If a potential financier tells you he lost millions the last time he invested in the Web, you can say, "Yes, but this time we understand it."
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.