Terra Naomi used YouTube for a “virtual tour” this summer – so instead of driving around the country as she’s done previous, she put videos of herself playing her guitar and singing on YouTube. Go have a look at the video of her song Say it’s possible, for instance. Now notice that this video has 72 video responses and almost all of them are from other people who are playing their own versions of her song. Isn’t that just insanely beautiful? I mean, the idea, of people sharing and creating and performing for each other together alone like that? And to think that I heard someone worried that kids these days just download music, they don’t make it anymore.

Terra Naomi’s website explains her YouTube success well – the last stuff is, as Stephanie Booth writes in the del.icio.us link where I found this (can I link to that?), the most interesting from a new media perspective.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Adam

    Hi Jill,

    I have never done this before and was told about your site by my professor. I am not familiar with many of your topics, but I find that to be quite all right. I really enjoyed this post. I agree: It is insanely beautiful. It helped me realize how much I had become one of those kids simply downloading music. I used to play other people’s music as well as create my own all the time. I have found myself so extremely tied up with school that I have pushed much of that aside. I just look for new music, acting only as a consumer. Your post made me restring my guitar and play for a while. Thanks.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.