5 ms·

I don't mind the short videos. What I do mind is that they co-opted the word "shorts" which means something else in the context of videos. https://www.latimes.c

• shiroiushi 3y ago
  Perhaps not: I think your link is talking about "short movies" or "short films". YouTube's Shorts are "short videos". Movies (films) and videos are not the same thing: movies/films are a type of video, but there are many other types of video that are not movies, most notably TV shows, and also "music videos", but really anything that involves a moving picture. A "movie" (or to some, "film") these days is commonly meant to refer to a specific form of art, meaning a visualized stand-alone story that usually takes 1-4 hours to watch, and frequently gets played in a cinema. Similarly, a "book" is a collection of bound paper pages, but a "novel" is a specific type of book that contains a story, and is usually a certain length (if it's too short, it's called a "short story"). So I think it's ok for YouTube to call their 60-second videos "shorts", as long as they don't call them "short films" or "short movies".
  • benatkin 3y ago
    The term "shorts" is also part of that and is what YouTube was trying to co-opt. In the link you can clearly see the word "shorts" being used to refer to these. Here's one from 2010: https://thescorecardreview.com/tsr/review/film-reviews/2010/02/18/oscar-shorts-2010-animated-program-film-reviews/8580 https://thescorecardreview.com/tsr/review/film-reviews/2010/...
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      That's just context allowing for abbreviation. "Shorts" has always meant different things in different contexts.