5 ms·

I've been a pretty frequent user since launch. It's really taken off in the past month or so, with news and sports. The NBA has replaced a lot of its court-side

I've been a pretty frequent user since launch. It's really taken off in the past month or so, with news and sports. The NBA has replaced a lot of its court-side Twitter/X branding with Threads. There's also a very strong growing tech and design presence.

rglullis 3y ago
I don't know how much is just wishful thinking, but if there is one thing that it would be very interesting to see is a world where major orgs end up using Threads as a stepping stone out of the walled gardens. I mean, why can't an organization like the NBA establish their own social media presence? Especially if they do end up federating out completely? Why do they need to keep relying on Facebook and playing the game according to Facebook rules, when they could just set up their own server and quickly get their audience in the Fediverse?
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  Why not just their own website.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Do you mean "their own domain"?
    - theonlybutlet 3y ago
      I mean own website on their own domain.
  - whycome 3y ago
    In Canada they actually redirect their own website to a third party (sportingNews.com). It's bizarre.
- netsharc 3y ago
  There's already an NBA App, I imagine they could set up their own social network, but I guess then the headache is, they'd have to manage a social network - which can be a bunch of monkeys at typewriters flinging the vilest things at each other, the topic might not even be basketball. I guess there's a market for shovels* there, a white label social media app/backend, customizable for organizations. Sure there's the fediverse, but companies would rather deal with someone they can call to fix things. *) if you're in a gold rush, don't be another goldminer, sell shovels instead.
  - barkerja 3y ago
    Then you have market fatigue for the user. After living in a world of Twitter where you can consume all the things you desire and discuss all those things in the same setting, very few people want to be jumping from app-to-app, website-to-website to talk to different groups of people about different topics. Twitter was (still is?) a true community center, digestible in a format that's quick and easy. That's the allure to the average user. There is also the discovery component. The Athletic (https://theathletic.com https://theathletic.com), which is an excellent source of news for all sports leagues, does have a pretty decent place for discussion, but its engagement pales in comparison to the likes of Twitter (and even Threads now).
    - rglullis 3y ago
      The discovery component is overblown. Any news org that has a website with a "Follow us on Twitter" button could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address.
      - barkerja 3y ago
        > could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address Ah! I do agree there. I mistook the op I replied to. I was assuming they were referring to the website itself being the source of content and discussion, not simply a referral to AP/Threads/X/whatever.
- whycome 3y ago
  The NBA is bizarre. Go see what they do for Canadian web audiences. They redirect nba.com to "sportingnews.com" in a way that makes you think there's been some sort of web hijack or bad DNS.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Okay, even if the NBA is stupid, the team managers aren't. Why can't, e.g, Mark Cuban put together a Mavericks server, get a service for their fans, exclusive content, etc, etc? Shit, does anyone know how I could pitch this to him?
    - maccard 3y ago
      What is the actual value of that for either mark Cuban or a user?
      - rglullis 3y ago
        That's like asking "what is the value of having your own website?" How about "Sign up to mavericks.fans for $3.99/month and get exclusive content and direct access to the players, priority for tickets, alternative streams..."?
        rchaud 3y ago
        These ideas are a dime a dozen in pro sports. NBA were selling NFTs as "exclusive content" through Top Shot not long ago. Anyway, this $3.99/mo stuff doesn't work outside of the VC-subsidized world where subscriber growth is more important than revenue. Getting sponsorship money and working with sports betting companies is where the money's at.
        lesuorac 3y ago
        Well I think sports betting companies / sponsorship money is where all the low hanging fruit is next to adding games in the season. I'm pretty sure the "base load" (> 1/3) is just ticket sales given the huge upswing in the 21/21 season ($3.6B) [1]. IIUC, the TV deal is "only" 2.5B/yr [2] and I assume all of the FanDuel ads get paid to the TV companies and not the league. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-revenue-of-the-nba-since-2005/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-reve... [2]: https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2023/06/01/nba-tv-rights-deal-disney-amazon-youtube https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2023/06/01/nba-tv-righ...
netsharc 3y ago
As much as I don't want to see the Zuckerverse succeed, Meta has a "we're the lesser evil" position at the moment, at least their Not-CEO hasn't told advertisers to go fuck themselves. If I worked for Meta, I would make getting companies and celebrities into Threads a priority.
- hehhehaha 3y ago
  wont someone think of the advertisers
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    I'm always thinking about the advertisers. I'm thinking how to keep blocking them.
- throw310822 3y ago
  > at least their Not-CEO hasn't told advertisers to go fuck themselves Since when we think of advertisers as a force for good? I always thought of them as the ones for whom the platforms are secretly working, while pretending they care for their users. I've been thinking about it in the last few days. Wasn't the idea that capitalists seek profit, and people and government care about the ethics and the politics and the law? Feels strange to be rooting for corporations to set the political standards for the public.
  - zzzeek 3y ago
    Sir, this is a Hacker News
  - cedilla 3y ago
    I think the discussion around Elon Musk and his outburst is a little bit more nuanced than choosing which side is the "force for good".
  - addicted 3y ago
    No, that’s not the idea of capitalism. Sure that’s what you’ve been sold by bad actors, but that’s definitely not how capitalists have been defined for most of history until very recently by some bad actors. At a bare minimum, capitalism requires capitalists to be ethical because if they’re not their customers will rebel. But comments like yours which explicitly try and excuse bad behavior because we should expect bad behavior tries to undermine the most basic capitalist tool to eliminate bad behavior. Heck, even Elon Musk’s entire original justification for buying Twitter was explicitly supposed to not be about profit.
hn1986 3y ago
So far so good! https://www.threads.net/@verge/post/C04TD45LTS1 https://www.threads.net/@verge/post/C04TD45LTS1

rglullis 3y ago

I don't know how much is just wishful thinking, but if there is one thing that it would be very interesting to see is a world where major orgs end up using Threads as a stepping stone out of the walled gardens. I mean, why can't an organization like the NBA establish their own social media presence? Especially if they do end up federating out completely? Why do they need to keep relying on Facebook and playing the game according to Facebook rules, when they could just set up their own server and quickly get their audience in the Fediverse?

theonlybutlet 3y ago
Why not just their own website.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Do you mean "their own domain"?
  - theonlybutlet 3y ago
    I mean own website on their own domain.
- whycome 3y ago
  In Canada they actually redirect their own website to a third party (sportingNews.com). It's bizarre.
netsharc 3y ago
There's already an NBA App, I imagine they could set up their own social network, but I guess then the headache is, they'd have to manage a social network - which can be a bunch of monkeys at typewriters flinging the vilest things at each other, the topic might not even be basketball. I guess there's a market for shovels* there, a white label social media app/backend, customizable for organizations. Sure there's the fediverse, but companies would rather deal with someone they can call to fix things. *) if you're in a gold rush, don't be another goldminer, sell shovels instead.
- barkerja 3y ago
  Then you have market fatigue for the user. After living in a world of Twitter where you can consume all the things you desire and discuss all those things in the same setting, very few people want to be jumping from app-to-app, website-to-website to talk to different groups of people about different topics. Twitter was (still is?) a true community center, digestible in a format that's quick and easy. That's the allure to the average user. There is also the discovery component. The Athletic (https://theathletic.com https://theathletic.com), which is an excellent source of news for all sports leagues, does have a pretty decent place for discussion, but its engagement pales in comparison to the likes of Twitter (and even Threads now).
  - rglullis 3y ago
    The discovery component is overblown. Any news org that has a website with a "Follow us on Twitter" button could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address.
    - barkerja 3y ago
      > could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address Ah! I do agree there. I mistook the op I replied to. I was assuming they were referring to the website itself being the source of content and discussion, not simply a referral to AP/Threads/X/whatever.
whycome 3y ago
The NBA is bizarre. Go see what they do for Canadian web audiences. They redirect nba.com to "sportingnews.com" in a way that makes you think there's been some sort of web hijack or bad DNS.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Okay, even if the NBA is stupid, the team managers aren't. Why can't, e.g, Mark Cuban put together a Mavericks server, get a service for their fans, exclusive content, etc, etc? Shit, does anyone know how I could pitch this to him?
  - maccard 3y ago
    What is the actual value of that for either mark Cuban or a user?
    - rglullis 3y ago
      That's like asking "what is the value of having your own website?" How about "Sign up to mavericks.fans for $3.99/month and get exclusive content and direct access to the players, priority for tickets, alternative streams..."?
      - rchaud 3y ago
        These ideas are a dime a dozen in pro sports. NBA were selling NFTs as "exclusive content" through Top Shot not long ago. Anyway, this $3.99/mo stuff doesn't work outside of the VC-subsidized world where subscriber growth is more important than revenue. Getting sponsorship money and working with sports betting companies is where the money's at.
        lesuorac 3y ago
        Well I think sports betting companies / sponsorship money is where all the low hanging fruit is next to adding games in the season. I'm pretty sure the "base load" (> 1/3) is just ticket sales given the huge upswing in the 21/21 season ($3.6B) [1]. IIUC, the TV deal is "only" 2.5B/yr [2] and I assume all of the FanDuel ads get paid to the TV companies and not the league. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-revenue-of-the-nba-since-2005/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-reve... [2]: https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2023/06/01/nba-tv-rights-deal-disney-amazon-youtube https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2023/06/01/nba-tv-righ...

netsharc 3y ago

As much as I don't want to see the Zuckerverse succeed, Meta has a "we're the lesser evil" position at the moment, at least their Not-CEO hasn't told advertisers to go fuck themselves. If I worked for Meta, I would make getting companies and celebrities into Threads a priority.

hehhehaha 3y ago
wont someone think of the advertisers
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  I'm always thinking about the advertisers. I'm thinking how to keep blocking them.
throw310822 3y ago
> at least their Not-CEO hasn't told advertisers to go fuck themselves Since when we think of advertisers as a force for good? I always thought of them as the ones for whom the platforms are secretly working, while pretending they care for their users. I've been thinking about it in the last few days. Wasn't the idea that capitalists seek profit, and people and government care about the ethics and the politics and the law? Feels strange to be rooting for corporations to set the political standards for the public.
- zzzeek 3y ago
  Sir, this is a Hacker News
- cedilla 3y ago
  I think the discussion around Elon Musk and his outburst is a little bit more nuanced than choosing which side is the "force for good".
- addicted 3y ago
  No, that’s not the idea of capitalism. Sure that’s what you’ve been sold by bad actors, but that’s definitely not how capitalists have been defined for most of history until very recently by some bad actors. At a bare minimum, capitalism requires capitalists to be ethical because if they’re not their customers will rebel. But comments like yours which explicitly try and excuse bad behavior because we should expect bad behavior tries to undermine the most basic capitalist tool to eliminate bad behavior. Heck, even Elon Musk’s entire original justification for buying Twitter was explicitly supposed to not be about profit.

hn1986 3y ago

So far so good! https://www.threads.net/@verge/post/C04TD45LTS1 https://www.threads.net/@verge/post/C04TD45LTS1