Craig Mische

Damon makes a perfectly commonsensical point: what do we know about Sarah Palin? - jackmason

@Peter I totally agree with you. I don't see any of my comments garnering a Mahalo page and I have just as much expertise in that area as he does. - Kenton

@peter LOL - John Denver

@jackmason I agree 100%, but these points have been made already by many people. I need someone in government to stand up and say this out loud. I want a network other than MS/NBC to point this out. . .repeatedly. And where the hell are the Obama commercials responding to this? - Peter Ghosh CISSP

Good point Kenton. Hey Jason, how can I get a Mahalo page? I could rant all day long. Just ask my FF followers :-) - Peter Ghosh CISSP

Spot on, Peter...I TIRE of those that somehow attribute astute political observation to celebrities as if they have a special knowledge of politics based solely on the fact that they are well paid to pretend to be someone else in front of an audience or a lens...Don't get me wrong, I dig Matt and his acting skills but his opinion on ANYTHING means exactly dookie to me... - Live4Soccer

After watching the video, all I can think about is Team America - "Matt Dayyyyymon" - Peter Ghosh CISSP

=1 everything Peter said... - Mark VandenBerg via twhirl

I've read some inane threads on FF lately, but this may be the most inane. You don't have to listen to him JUST BECAUSE he's a celebrity. But celebrity status doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. Why not actually defend Palin from the very sensible charges Damon's making, rather than trying to discredit him merely on the basis that he acts for a living? - Lon Harris via twhirl

While I agree with you Peter that someone in government needs to say these things, at least someone is listening to the message even if it comes from Matt Damon. - Lindsey Smith

In the same way I don't take my cues on gun control from Ted Nugent I won't take my cues on Plain or anyone else from Matt Damon. What difference is Fred Thompson's view of Palin as compared to Damon's and why is one given more "credibility" than the other? It's got nothing to do with Palin but everything to do with Celebrity Worship and mindless drones who seek celebrity approval for their beliefs. What qualifies Damon more than my Uncle for opinions on anything? - Live4Soccer

It doesn't make him any more or less qualified to express an opinion because he's a celebrity, but it certainly doesn't disqualify him, like some people would clearly like to do. It's like anything: don't want to hear it, turn the channel, unsubscribe, etc. - Bob M. Montgomery via twhirl

*click*....I wonder what Smokin' Joe Fraiser thinks of Sarah Palin? The former Heavyweight Champion of the World is famous and because he's human, he has the ability to form opinions that I must know...my vote this November is counting on it.... - Live4Soccer

My favorite Matt Damon quote : ""For a lot of actors, our biggest fear is that we're going to start talking about things we don't fully understand and sound like idiots,...In the long run, I'll do much more good if, when I open my mouth, I have something worth saying." - Keith Smith

@Lon I have no problem with what Matt has said in the video. I'm certainly not going to defend Palin. My point is that there are plenty of people, far more qualified than some actor, that have been saying the same things, yet without the coverage. Why is it such big news when Matt Damon says it? It seems that because (insert famous actor of choice here) says it, it must be right. - Kenton

But, I mean, it makes sense on one level, right? He makes the point in a funny, compelling way, and people already know and like him from the movies. I understand when people mock celebrities for expressing ill-informed opinions about matters, but why the animosity towards a guy who's clearly at least somewhat intelligent making a good argument? - Lon Harris via twhirl

Kenton, because he said it well in an easy to digest format and with good use of humor. - Alex "Maverick" Scoble

My favorite on this topic from a year or two ago: "Nobody should give a shit about an actor's opinion on politics." - James Caan - Jeff Quinton

Matt Damon is a tool, but I will defend with my life his right to be a tool... - John Denver

Jeff, why stop there? "Nobody should give a shit about a politician's opinion on politics." - Alex Scoble - Alex "Maverick" Scoble

His question isn't a bad one - but it is answered fairly simply. We know that at no point has Palin attempted to legislate creationism into the school system and we know that she has publicly stated that it is not important as part of the curriculum and that she did not consider it a useful litmus test for teachers. Her father was a science teacher who apparently DID believe in evolution. In short, while it would be good to know her views - panic is not warranted. - Soulhuntre

I just watched the video once again, Matt Damon is concerned about everyone's lack of knowledge about Palin. I understand that and if I was an American voting in the election, I'd be concerned about it too(and as a Canadian I'm still worried because the current lunatic running your country has an impact on us whether we like it or not). However, my point is still this; If the AP had done a man-on-the-street and someone had said exactly the same thing, would he/she have gotten their own Mahalo page? - Kenton

Kenton: Mahalo is not "curated" in the sense that we sit around and decide what news is important enough to make pages on. It's "curated" in the sense that we pick the day's most popular topics and then find the best information about them. Many many people are searching for this Matt Damon clip today. You watched it twice yourself and are now engaged in a discussion about it. That's why we built the page. If an AP "Man on the Street" interview about Palin was a hot search term today, we'd build that page, too. - Lon Harris via twhirl

OK, thanks Lon, I didn't realize that about Mahalo. I don't need to belabour my point here any longer. As for M.D.'s comments; If Palin were to become President and she decided that a book that Robert Scoble hadn't saved to his hard drive should be burned... What are the chances that she'd actually be able to make that happen? I'm asking this in all seriousness as I assume it would be very difficult but don't know U.S. government procedures well enough. - Kenton

And... I assume that the current President believes that dinosaurs existed 4000 years ago (if he knows what a dinosaur is). He hasn't accidentally set off any nukes. - Kenton

I think he's just confused. It's born-again, not Bourne-again. - Siona van Dijk

Apparently he doesn't know how to get to Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics... - Keith Smith

Apparently, you don't get what he's saying in the video. He wants to ask her those questions to see if it's true or not. The main point being that she's so new to the scene that we don't know anything about her other than these tidbits from the news. That there's no way that anyone can rationally say that she's fit to lead the country based off of what we know of her. - Alex "Maverick" Scoble

Oh, OK. What were Obama's, Biden's, and McCain's answers to the 4,000 year old dinosaur thing? I thought it was Internet noise and didn't realize the candidates were being asked such a dire question. - Keith Smith

They've been out in big party politics for so long that we already know the answers to those questions. And none of them purports to be a creationist, something that to a lot of Americans is synonymous with kook. - Alex "Maverick" Scoble

duuuh Matt Daaaaaaaaaaahmon.... TEAM America! Duuuh! Howard Zinn brainwashed him. they must of served the good stuff @ Martha's Vinyard - AnotherⓃⓄⒶⒽ

I'm shocked people are slamming Damon here, he poses thoughtful questions....this video will factor in people's minds...way to go Matt. - timedalkat via twhirl

But...but...he's a Hollywood celebrity! And he was mocked in a mediocre puppet movie! He's clearly not allowed to have independent thoughts, right, gang? Especially if they conflict with our own snap judgments! - Lon Harris via twhirl

@Brian - Well sure it would, after you download the video from your camera to your laptop, edit it, process it, and upload it to a video hosting service. - Ryan Sholin

But the quality is just so ropey. Even youtube is biting the high quality bullet these days. - Toby Graham

As mobile broadband proliferates things will get better; problem is there are still a lot of places where you need that truck. - Jared Smith

Ryan: so what is the downside of doing that (other than losing the live part) -- shouldn't the goal be to produce more value for the viewer? - Brian Sullivan

There are bandwidth limitations, the live feed is lost or switches to 1 frame per minute sometimes, but that probably will get better. The quality is very low right now. - Mário Pires

I'd like to remind geeks in the US and UK that the costs of video streaming for Canadians is through the roof. Our telcos are gouging us on everything. Over 60 dollars a month to use an Iphone is outrageous - and we're making a lot of noise here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/c... - mel maverick mcbride

Brian: if I had to do all of that I would video far far fewer things and THAT would mean far less value to you. - Robert Scoble

I like the spontaneity of cell streaming and I still forsee an online news site w/ 'reporters' around the globe. - Craig Mische

@Brian - That all is just way, way too slow. I work in the news business, and my goal is to get news out as fast as possible on the Web. If you're making a 10-minute documentary, heck, take along the HV20 and the tripod, take your time, and win an award; I want breaking news streaming live as it happens. - Ryan Sholin

Robert: I think that I should be the judge of what is of value to me -- not you. Do you agree? More quantity <> more value -- though that seems to be the prevailing attitude. Video costs my time to consume and I don't want to spend my time on bad audio, pixelating pictures. I suspect though with some quick computer uploads from a decent camera and basic on the spot editing the quality would increase and the quantity would only suffer slightly. I think mobile instant video via cell phone may once have its day as bandwidth and quality increase but that day is not now. - Brian Sullivan

What about uStream? Surely you could rig up a cheap DV cam (or an old iSight) and either WiFi or cellular data connection? I understand the single device convenience, but it would offer a higher quality stream for users. Not criticizing, just wondering why you chose one option over the other. I personally love Qik, but I rarely do anything interesting enough to warrant live streaming, and the quality over EDGE (N73 has neither UMTS 1900/850 nor WiFi, sadly) isn't pretty. Plus lots of delays can delay the broadcast so much that sometimes I might as well just record the video and upload it to YouTube via Shozu. - Ivan via fftogo

Brian: that's why I do many different types of video, from live in studio, to recorded on HD camcorders, to Qik, to make sure I give you as much value as possible and give you as many ways to interact with me as possible. But, my Qik's speak for themselves. Want to be on the South Lawn of the White House while I got a tour? Qik. Annie Leibovitz as show showed me her collection? Qik. Elon Musk as he gave me a ride in first production Tesla? Qik. And so on, so forth. - Robert Scoble

I simply would NOT have done those videos if I had had to carry yet another piece of equipment, recorded them on some card, and then uploaded them from a computer. Would NOT have happened. So, the Qik videos have MORE value than the system you are recommending, which would have NO value. Got it yet? - Robert Scoble

I totally disagree that the quantity would only suffer slightly. TOTALLY DISAGREE. You have no clue there. Why aren't you putting up one to five videos a day? Maybe because it takes time to video? Maybe because you forgot your camera at home? Maybe because socially it's improper to bring a camera along? - Robert Scoble

What if you could simply make a 3G video call and have the video streamed to your favorite video sharing site? Would you see more value in that solution? - Bruno Pedro

Ivan: uStream can't do videos from cell phones. I don't know where you got that idea. It's nothing like Kyte or Qik or Flixwagon or Bambuser. - Robert Scoble

Robert: But that fact that those videos were done in Qik was only your choice. Was it necessary to their value that they be done that way? I am guessing not. Did they "need" to be live? What extra value was there in doing them live? - Brian Sullivan

Bruno: I basically already do that with Qik and Kyte. There's not much we can do to get better quality unless we're willing to give up the "live" feature. If we are willing to do that we can get a little better quality. I like the liveness, though, because it lets you participate. - Robert Scoble

Robert: but with Qik and Kyte you still need to install applications on your cell phone, right? I'm talking about simply making a 3G video call, instantly, and have it streamed to your favorite video sharing site. Do you think it would appeal to journalists in general or people like you? - Bruno Pedro

Brian: you aren't hearing me. Yes. Because I would NOT have done them AT ALL if I had to upload them later. It's not the "liveness" that gets me going on many of these things (although that is massively cool, especially when you have an audience). It's the frictionless publishing and the fact that I always carry my cell phone everywhere. - Robert Scoble

Bruno: I'd be interested in trying it, but the 3G video calls I've seen don't allow for interactivity, which IS a huge deal on Qik/Kyte. - Robert Scoble

Robert: Right, and I agree that it might be a turn-off. Thanks for your opinion. - Bruno Pedro

Immediacy and audience participation are features that non-professional video offers with today's tools. Professional video can offer them but generally don't due to complexity. It's a tradeoff. By "non-professional", I'm not dissin' Robert; I'm simply describing traditional vs. non-traditional tools. - Kevin C. Tofel

Robert: I hear you -- you like this because it easier for you. That is fine for the production end. I am at the consuming end. As a consumer I would be happier if you pushed yourself to do these videos anyway and absorbed some of the friction. But this is not an argument that either of us will likely win (assuming winning is changing the other's opinion) so you will likely carry on making the videos and I will carry on avoiding them ( except for an occasion look to see if quality has improved to make me want to watch -- because I enjoy your enthusiasm and point of view) - Brian Sullivan

Kevin is right. Brian, in that case you'll want to only watch the videos we put up at ScobleizerTV, not FastCompanyLive or Qik or Kyte. Those are the ones we use $20,000 worth of equipment to make. Unfortunately I can only do three to five videos on that equipment a week, cause of Rocky's limitations in editing and producing said video. But it sure is high quality! By the way, I watch a lot of Qik video and I disagree that it is low quality. As long as I can hear what's going on, I'm happy. - Robert Scoble

Robert: I think there is a level between the $20000 worth of equipment ones and the live crappy throw away Qik ones that would compel me to watch. Saying Qik videos are not low quality can only be true if your quality standards are much lower than mine. Obviously if just hearing what is going on is good enough for you though that is true. Why shoot video at all if hearing what is going on is good enough? - Brian Sullivan

Brian: because the video often adds an important piece of information. I think the video is "good enough" for many many kinds of things. Especially talking heads. Again, the problem is that the friction of publishing is enough to keep me from turning on the camera on a whole range of experiences. Also, there are plenty of things that have gotten much better because of the live audiences. Interviews at Davos, for instance, were much better because of the interaction of the live audience. - Robert Scoble

For instance, we recorded Jonathan Adelstein on both Qik and our HDTV camcorders. Our HD videos will take another week or two to get up. But the Qik one is up already at http://qik.com/video/113607 and it's quite watchable. - Robert Scoble

Don't get me on to talking heads. In my industry I consider that use of video a total waste of effort, bandwidth and attention. This all comes back to your earlier statement though. "Frictionless" publishing makes it easier for you. But it makes it crappier and less useful to me. I would prefer that you absorb some of the friction in the making of these videos. - Brian Sullivan

Brian: there's only so many videos in one day I can do. I'm at my limit. You are getting what you are getting. :-) I already do quite a few "high quality" videos at http://www.fastcompany.tv and am happy you'll at least be enjoying those. As far as talking heads, interesting, that's where a lot of TV is nowadays. And, where else are you going to listen to an FCC commissioner talk? - Robert Scoble

Robert: As I said we are unlikely to change each other's minds on this subject so it is probably better if we both move to other subjects/posts ? - Brian Sullivan

Bruno Pedro: one advantage of your idea of making a 3G call is that you're independent of being able to run someone's software (like QIK, which doesn't run on blackberries, for instance): it the phone is 3G, then you have the functionality. Now, *that* rocks. I could see carriers entering into that business... - Marcos Marado

it needs to be higher quality before it catches on bigtime. - Michael J. Cohen (mjc)