Join 3,421 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Free Speech on Demand
October 25, 2004 12:55 AM   Subscribe

Freespeeches.net is the future of television. Videoblogging focuses the global scope of TV down to the substantive issues that matter. Freespeeches.net concentrates on politics, offering several brief, easily downloadable clips a week of voices ranging from Bush to Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. (Ann Coulter's riff on "camel-riding nomads" is particularly grotesque.) See videoblogging.info for an introduction to this rapidly up-and-coming new medium, and then check out Underground Clips and Demand Media too. They watch TV so you don't have to.
posted by digaman (16 comments total)

 
The future of television is not Quicktime.
posted by angry modem at 1:08 AM on October 25, 2004


They watch TV so you don't have to.

Now to find someone who'll read Metafilter so I don't have to.
posted by trondant at 1:10 AM on October 25, 2004


Quicktime is a fine means for taking control of content and distribution in the ultimate top-down corporate medium. Freespeeches.net is the homebrewed site of a student at SUNY Stony Brook. When I was that age, the notion of editing and presenting my own selection of TV coverage of politics to a global audience -- from all sides of the political spectrum, including marginalized voices and soundbites unheard on the major networks -- seemed remote indeed. I think it's great.
posted by digaman at 1:18 AM on October 25, 2004


I'm sure it's great. It's just not the future, is all.
posted by angry modem at 1:20 AM on October 25, 2004


Videoblogging? And here I thought we'd at least keep the blog plague restricted to whiny text. Dammit.
posted by neckro23 at 1:23 AM on October 25, 2004


up-and-coming new medium

golly gee they did not have dem video on the internets till 2003?
posted by Dreamghost at 1:25 AM on October 25, 2004


dreamghost, Al Gore told me he invented that video thingy back in like 1978. Get with the times!
posted by shepd at 1:28 AM on October 25, 2004


Not in the easily archivable and searchable form made possible by the proliferation of blogware like WordPress. Can we get out of the Hair-Splitting Salon for a post or two here?
posted by digaman at 1:28 AM on October 25, 2004


Suppose one megabit/sec of bandwidth costs $100 per month, and each megabit yields about 200 usable gigabytes of bandwidth. Now you want to serve a single 5 MB video. If you get an even stream of hits over the course of a day, that $100 will pay for 40,000 downloads of the video over the course of a month. About 1,300 downloads per day.

But if you get MeFi'd and 10,000 people try to download that vidoe all at once then there will be a sudden demand for 10 gigabits of bandwidth. Right after the visitors saturate one of your ISP's OC-192 lines your server and the closest router will be reduced to a smoldering hulk. And the data center manager will send for your head on a platter. (Severed heads are generally kept in a futurama-style jar and mounted just above the framed dead router and server(s) as both a trophy and a warning to future customers)

Video on Demand may be the future of the internets, but available video serving software is little better than ftp or gopher was for text files. We've got a long way to go in terms of software and cost before video blogging becomes a tool of the masses.
posted by b1tr0t at 1:28 AM on October 25, 2004


I see nothing but marketing speak for something that has been done before. I mean, we all know bloggers like to toot their own horns and preach their own importance, but this is just a little too obvious.
posted by angry modem at 1:40 AM on October 25, 2004


Well, videoblogging ain't so hot, but: did anyone besides me hear and see Ann Coulter call Native Americans savage nomads who liked to scalp people? I'd like to see her footnotes for that (nod to Franken).
posted by josephtate at 1:43 AM on October 25, 2004


b1tr0t, services like Open Media, run by the archive.org folks, are emerging to address those tech issues by hosting the video-bandwidth for vbloggers.
posted by digaman at 1:46 AM on October 25, 2004


Sorry, "ourmedia," not "Open Media."
posted by digaman at 1:47 AM on October 25, 2004


digaman is on to somthing. Obviously, it is not "new" in the sense you have never seen it before (the cynics and "seen it all" types come out of the woodwork and frame the concept so that they don't have to think too hard about it). But it is new in the sense it could very likely become an increasingly popular way to spend ones time.

One of the complaints about TV is the 2 minute maximum on any news story (most are less) which leads to a whole host of problems. Videoblog clips will be under 2 minutes also, but with follow up discussion on-line. The TV networks should be doing this themselves (and may eventually if the idea catches on).
posted by stbalbach at 4:59 AM on October 25, 2004


The future of television is not RealMedia, either. Great idea, typical(ly inept) execution.
posted by squirrel at 9:05 AM on October 25, 2004


For those who are interested in refining the technical aspects of this medium, there's a Yahoo group dedicated to vblogging, and an interesting post on a blog called Momentshowing that's worth checking out.
posted by digaman at 9:47 AM on October 25, 2004


« Older Transitioning the Army Reserve to train Iraqi troo...  |  Someone... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments