Here is Matthew Mitchem’s response to some questions I sent him about the multitude.tv project. Matthew is presenting at the Video Vortex conference on the Alternative Platforms and Software panel (Amsterdam, January 18/19).

SK - I am interested in the differences you are working on addressing in contrast to the way YouTube operates as part of offering an alternative. Along with the political motivations and undertones.

MM - Well we’re not entirely disconnected from Youtube, rather per a bit parasitic on it. YouTube is related to multitude.tv as more or less one host amongst other platforms. This is largely to reduce bandwidth, but also to exploit those particular platforms out of their own context. YouTube, I think, is an “alternative” largely in relation to “old media” particularly television. On the Internet YouTube (and other major hosts) are really large databases each with their own rules, and their own relations to each other and old media. I would agree with Geert that when we talk about YouTube were largely speaking of video on the Internet (not that this is accurate, but it is easy).

Then of course, multitude.tv has obvious activist undertones, There is with many members of the site an activist history, my personal history in this regard is largely tied up with a kind of late 1990s/early 2000’s Midwestern situationism of an “Adbusters” flavor.

Less, and perhaps unrecognizably political, is the broad range of interest, philosophy, art, science (lifted from Deleuze & Guattari’s “What is Philosophy”) and global, cultural, and media (arenas of activism). These aren’t the only reasons for these organizational choices, but this example reflexes some of the thought behind them. I think these are all intense points of political intersection, though not necessarily partisan. Also with Deleuze, and against Badiou, I would resist counting politics amongst the “disciplines” of “Philosophy, Art, and Science”.

In some ways I think this capacity of multitude.tv to be parasitical of the YouTubes of the net differentiates it from YouTube, and that it is healthier for the functioning of the site (in terms of database/directory load) to be parasitical is not without import. This I would suggest is part of its malleability.

Another consideration in organizing multitude.tv is a consideration of the flows of integrations on the site. For example, all of the comments are run through the same component as the forums (Communicate). While some information is less integrated (user profile information for example). There is also, in contrast to YouTube, a relatively transparent editorial organization, editors are more active members of the site who express interest in being editors.

Currently another site member and I are putting together editorial guidelines. All of this of course operates on a different organization than membership of YouTube. On YouTube members are more or less equal (there are corporate and promotional exceptions), but in terms of users they are equal; there are more administrative barriers to adding different kinds of content on multitude.tv (I don’t like it, it is managerial and I resist it), and like YouTube one does not have to be a member of multitude.tv to access most of its content (user profiles being major exception); and like YouTube one must be a member to add videos to the site.

However, the content of multitude.tv is placed within an organization around topics; in this way it acts more or less like a standard web 2.0 collective blog (wordpress, etc), especially in regards to News items. Furthermore, like those blogs, videos may also appear in the content. However, we also act as a video-filter for videos appearing throughout the Internet on multiple sites; bringing them together by and for a community.

For example, we’ve recently been bringing together videos on philosophers, longer documentaries, which are then searchable via the site; so that multitude.tv can act as a kind of interest filter for on-line video. (Philosophy professors for example may direct students to the site) This is a minor use of the site, but one that is concrete; a use that was an affect of the organization and presentation of the content.

SK - There seems a lot to work with and explain in relation to the motivations behind the project and the actual way these work within the framework of the website. It would be good to get a better understanding of how multitude.tv works - I read the ‘about’ and engaged with the website and wanted more explanation of what is taking place in this space and possibly how you see it being developed in the future. i.e. What has been learnt? What is being seen as a focal point for that development?

MM – Right now, we are busy getting the format of the on-line journal launched, it will be an on-line journal with Articles, Reviews and an Art section, replacing the current Articles and Reviews on the site. The focus of development at this point is to stir registered users to use the site, and to get new members. We have discussed the possibility of a conference, and we are participating in various forums. Though we are hesitant in being overtly political, largely due to the current polemical nature of politics, particularly in the US. Ideally the site could be a space for other projects to emerge from, for collaborations to form; the area called “Collaborate” is an area for users to create groups. In a similar way that myspace/faceboook etc work, but with an a priori interest in those fields through which the site is organized.

SK - In your earlier reference to open source software this could be seen as secondary maybe to the alternative platform focus - possible briefly covered as part of working with open source applications and integrating these with this type of initiative…even looking at the issues faced in doing this etc…

MM - This is the final major part of the redesign of the site, which included all kinds of lessons learned about operating and configuring a CMS, in this case Joomla. Many of the previous components that made up the old site were replaced… and the redesign went much deeper than the template. I might want to discuss particular components operating on the site, especially Seyret, the component that host and organizes, the video. This component more or less makes easy the creation of an online video site (much like YouTube), for free (there is a pro version available with more features and for a price). It lends itself to various ways of organizing and presenting videos from all over the net and is the video content poaching brain of our site. Furthermore it’s highly configurable by the user, our designer did a complete template overhaul for it (and for much of the site), which was with relatively straightforward modifications. I should also say that regardless of the parasitical relationship to YouTubes, multitude.tv can host videos, though we are limited in format (and unfortunately presently do not support ogg); and we encourage members to upload/submit their own work to the site.

Thanks for your notes on the ‘About’ page; I would agree that it is very ambiguous, and needs to continually be fleshed out, and it is my hope that as the community expands (slowly) and develops the about page will change… It is modified about every 6 months anyway, as strategies and interest moves in the user community.

SK - Some questions - How is editing and posting handled (is there gatekeeping?) When something is posted by multitude.tv is that one person or a group?

MM - A post by “multitude.tv” is usually by me, though editable by anyone in the editorial collective (publisher status on the site). At one time we did have a more explicit membership structure, but now it is a reflection of organization and administration access to the site. I am more or less a fulcrum of the site, more as an administrator than as an executive; and different projects of the site have more active participants (I work principally with one user for design, a few others for editing, another for publishing of news items, and a few folks for translation, and one user that watches where our traffic comes from). I largely address technical concerns myself and don’t bother anyone until I can’t do anything more, though volunteers are always welcome. I don’t enjoy multitude.tv being referred to as my project, or my site, and I have a resistance to too much organization, and the “lessons learned” are all about making concessions to organization, and trying various strategies. It should also be noted I am not the only person with access to the backend structure of the site, there are other administrators. One has to be an idealist on some level to experiment like this…

Thanks a lot, I get a great deal out of thinking and writing about these things… We made the forum “multitude.tv” in the Communicate section (viewable when signed in) to discuss the site itself, discussions like this (though the forum has been fairly mute)…