As a glass-half-full type of person, I typically focus on the good while recognizing there is bad. I’ve yet to talk about the ugly.
That moment is here.
A fad in the United States – which hasn’t yet hit the UK – is so-called lifecasting, the real-time broadcasting of events in a person’s life through video over the internet.
It’s typified by the lifecaster walking around with a wearable video camera and microphone and transmitting all he or she experiences live via a service like Justin.tv.
It’s a terrific idea, one that anyone can do with some inexpensive video equipment and some imagination. I can see great potential in the workplace for informal communication of this type, whether it’s called lifecasting or something else.
Look at Microsoft’s Channel 9, for instance, a larger and more established model that if started today may well have embraced the lifecasting notion.
The problem, though, is when a lifecaster behaves as if he or she has an absolute right to just go somewhere and start broadcasting.
That problem is amplified when the lifecaster is convinced he/she has been severely wronged when prevented from doing that, posts a video recording of his encounter and tries to justify his “right” to lifecast anything, anywhere.
Watch the two videos in this example and I think you’ll agree that this is definitely the ugly.
Thankfully, every one of the 26 commenters (so far) agrees, best summed up in these two comments:
You are in the wrong here. The lady was just doing her job and you were giving her attitude. Deal with it, having a camera doesnâ€™t give you a right to do anything you want.
And summarizing overall feelings:
If youâ€™ve accomplished anything with this, it is to prove that an always on world is not a good idea. At least not when a moron has the camera.