Right now, how finely we can perceive this user-generated content revolution? What kind of critique we can do against it? And from this point of view, we can see two different views on this issue. Because yes, the amount of content created by the users is still growing. And even now, the total amount of this content is much more higher than the amount of the professionally produced content. And from this point of view, we can see two different opposite, we'll say, interpretations of these phenomena. First, the positive view, the idea that these user-generated content represent a very important thing, it's a cultural emancipation. The idea of cultural emancipation that people are able to create by themself, to spread out their cultural creativity, which is positive from this point of view. Another view is the critical view. Critical view, which is mainly based around the idea of that this user-generated content is the new way of capitalist exploitation. It's the new way of big companies, such as YouTube, such as Google, because Google is the YouTube partner, to exploit the quasi-free labor of the users in order to make the profits from the advertising. So, the ideology of UGC as the cultural emancipation is linked strongly with the name of Henry Jenkins, a very known American professor, who is saying that spreadable media empowers consumers. From this point of view, user-generated content is considered as a sign of cultural emancipation and final point in enlarging the participatory culture. This term participatory culture becomes very important for Jenkins. And any user is considered by Jenkins as co-creator. And since it's a co-creator, it's the participatory culture, the culture which is empowering also the consumer. And from this point of view, there's a huge revolution in all mass communication chains. Because historically, before mass communication chains, the final power of the content creator was the power of the professional company, media structure, media company, media holding, culture industry, company, et cetera, et cetera. And here, we have deal with a particular fan and consumer who are participating in such participatory culture in such production of the content. And finally, it makes the balanced this model between the power of consumer and the power of producer of the content. So, it means that the fans, consumers could participate in circulation and creation of new content. And from this point of view, since such people are making content for their pleasure, they are not motivated financially. It means that UGC creators are not motivated financially. They just would like to do a self-expression. For them, it's just a universe of self-expression. And if we will take a look on a classic chain of production in professional media, we can see the concepts and ideas, content production, content packaging, content marketing, and content distribution. And in the field of UGC, we have deal with user-generated infrastructure. So, concept and ideas are created by users. For example, in particular, multi-user online games, the whole environment, and infrastructure inside the games is created or co-created by users. Then, we have deal with UGC, user-generated content. Then, we have deal with user-organized content, when the user are contributing to their organization of the content on the platform by voting, for example, for particular types of contents which becomes more visible for another people. Then, it could be user-generated marketing, when the people are promoting a particular contents. And user-generated distribution, we are social networks for example. Once we are making their posts or share of a particular content, we are making the user-generated distribution. What kind of critique is done against user-generated content? Of course, such critique is based on the idea that all these idea of the participatory culture is a collective utopia the same, that the idea of the collective intelligence. The idea of collective intelligence was pointed out by French philosopher, Pierre Levy in 1990s because he called that the internet is a collective intelligence. So, from the critical point of view, UGC is considered as a tool of big digital capitalist companies. Because, UGC permits for big companies as Google to increase advertising revenues without considerably invest into professional content, without considerably pay or invest into the production of content. So, it's just the idea of the new form of exploitation or digital labor, where people works not for the money or remuneration, but for their pleasure and their self-expression. The people would like to self-express, that's why they accept not to be paid or to be paid at the modest level. So, from this point of view, if exploitation does not feel like exploitation, then this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And this is the argument of one of the critique of UGC, and one of the critique of contemporary social media culture, Kristen Fuchs, who is a professor in Westminster University. So, this is the idea of their precarious culture worker, and we will back to this idea of precarious worker during the six-week of the course when we will speak about the creative industries concept. Because a lot of this ideology of precariat is largely used in these creative-free industries ideology. Ideology is based on the idea that the people are working not for the money, they are working for the pleasure, for the particular experience, et cetera. And these, it becomes the new tool of social stratification and creation of the illusion of the higher class in the social hierarchy. Because, instead of saying that you are just the amateur video maker, you can say that you are precarious video producer. And from this point of view, your social stature is making higher. We'll back to it.
