YouTube Deaths of Popular Celebrities

On March 27, 2012 fans voiced their sarcastic remorse and pointed remarks about the death of Chris Brown in the comments section of his most popular YouTube videos. The problem is, Chris Brown’ is not dead.

Once users caught wind of the hoax, thousands of comments were rapidly posted, some of which were removed but most of which were met with overwhelming approval and thumbs up. A simple “RIP” comment, even when appearing directly after another “RIP” comment would receive 10 thumbs up right away. The response was larger than if Chris Brown really had died. It seemed as though people became momentarily infatuated with the power of the Internet in making its own news and truth.

Chris Brown is not the first victim of social media manslaughter. Twitter has claimed the lives of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, Reba McEntire, Tiger Woods, and Barack Obama to name just a few. Most of the time the rumor spreads with a simple hashtag #NAMEdead.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the power and even viral tendencies of death hoaxes, it’s just the nature of social media. While most of us use sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube everyday, we are often struck by how influential they are and how easily they can nudge the online world an inch at a time.

However, these hoaxes seem to point to something more specific about the nature of the Internet and the generation that nursed it. As we see most of our favorite sites slip from our grasp, normalize, break down and appeal to the masses, we sometimes lash out and take it back as our own, even if for a short while.

A couple months back, YouTube changed its layout to favor channels and the content of its largest users, while at the same time taking the eyes off the “Charlie Bit My Finger”s and dusty gems out there waiting for Internet stardom. With the new design, most need YouTube help to use the site and get their videos noticed. I’m not saying that this type of behavior is directly defiant of these changes, but establishing who really has control of the content of the Internet will always come from the users.

Internet users have never hesitated to flex their influence when met with opposition. At the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, with the help of a number of powerful sites like Wikipedia and Reddit shutting down for a day, the public rose up against the SOPA act which would censor the content on the Web and change the Internet forever. Companies that didn’t participate in the blackout were ostracized and boycotted, leading eventually to an app that lets you scan items to let you know if the maker of the product supports SOPA.

The public’s reaction to SOPA is much more active and meaningful than spamming Chris Brown videos, but nonetheless shows one end of the public’s power over those that think they run the Internet. With the most powerful websites (Wikipedia, Google, YouTube etc.) all hosting content made by the user, it’s no wonder why it’s so easy to constantly change the Internet, expose the holes, and remind everyone who the Internet was made for.

So Chris Brown lives to see another day, no thanks to YouTube. We can see this as an example of how to use YouTube to create a stir, or look at it contextually as a natural outburst from an unpredictable population. Regardless of how Chris Brown’s fake death is viewed, once again, the public is reminded that the Internet is not always stable ground and the people who populate it can always go for a bit of chaos.

This is a guest post from Daniel Levine, a writer at Grovo.com, a field guide to the Internet where users can learn about everything from how to use Twitter to professional networking with Branchout.