Camp’s origins lie in gay subculture and drag. I’m not familiar enough with that history or body of work to discuss or understand that version of camp. So instead I have to do what I do understand: YouTube.
Douglas Wolk’s points out when Sontag brought “camp” into mainstream parlance, camp has reached a point where it’s hard to be shocking or new. From his perspective in 2006, Wolk’s discussion of Numa Numa suggests that the video is a possible example of “pure” camp as described by Sontag: people like it because it is honestly over the top, despite the fact that it is not exactly “bad” (around 2006 there were still no culturally endorsed standards defining what makes a youtube video “good”).
Today’s youtube virals tend to be different. We have standards of what “good” is to measure them against. In 2004, Wolk described modern camp as “…a sensibility entirely without risk or shock, a cultural flavor like any other. Camp is hyper-aestheticized, or deliberately overaestheticized…” In my opinion, today’s videos are a reflection of this the trend of campiness as a knowing style. Music videos that have used it include Party Rock Anthem, Sexy and I Know It, and most recently, Gangam Style.
Like Numa Numa, these videos are seen as good. Other similarities include over the top visuals and a decently put together music. But the discovery element of them is also gone. Instead, friends share the videos with other friends. And the whole thing is commodified and exploited. The Old Spice Guy ad campaigns use an over the top style to sell a product. The style has gone a long way from its roots as a subculture in-joke.