4 ms·

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

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...
      - rglullis 3y ago
        The cost of running the infra is negligible compared with the potential of whatever idea they will come up with.
    - maccard 3y ago
      That doesn't require a federated social network though, that's what https://www.mavs.com/ https://www.mavs.com/ can be.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        If they just use a website, they have to put links to Youtube to share videos, or Twitter links to share news, or Facebook if they want to run a promotion/poll. By running their own federated social media server, they get to be in control of the conversation. (I'm telling you, sometimes these responses feel like talking with the MS exec who said that internet search was not needed because people had bookmarks)
        maccard 3y ago
        You're missing the point though. The users are already on the website, and on twitter, YouTube and tiktok. Those platforms have tools to control the conversation already. Federated Social Media is a technical solution to a people problem. > sometimes these responses feel like talking with the MS exec who said that internet search was not needed because people had bookmarks And likewise, these responses feel like talking with a door to door salesperson. If your only argument is that you can have a worse experience, but be in control of it, you're not going to win the argument.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > The users are already on the website, and on twitter, YouTube and tiktok. There is a non-negligible number of people who are leaving Twitter and are trying to get rid of Youtube. > worse experience Why? Don't give me arguments based on circumstances. Mastodon is not the endgame here. The apps can be improved and content discovery mechanisms can be implemented. What is "fundamentally worse" about federated social media?
        maccard 3y ago
        Your definition of non-negligible is my definition of insignificant or irrelevant. I'm still on X, and despite the people I follow declaring they're leaving, it's still the place to be. They all still post. > Why? Don't give me arguments based on circumstances. You're the one claiming it's an improvement, the onus is on you to convince me why it's an improved experience. That said, I'm happy to give you my perspective. Centralised services collect and colocate the information. If I follow the mavericks, i likelt want to be kept up to date with other stuff going with the NBA. Twitter, Instagram, tiktok do that in a way that hundreds of millions of people find valuable. If I want a source of news owned by mavericks, I can visit their website already. That exists, right now, for me to go and look at. There's the question of "which mark Cuban" - is markcuban@mavs the right one, or markcuban@nba or markcuban@cuban (which has no affiliation to either the NBA, Mark Cuban or the mavericks). X has this (well, it had it and then fucked it), tiktok has this, threads has this solved. If I go and register markcuban@threads, and start posting impersonating mark Cuban, meta will step in (I imagine). You may not want that, but he does, meta does, and millions of people who use their services do. For services like YouTube, they provide an Audience for NBA fans to show similar content to - you think the NBA doesn't want to get eyeballs from people who are interested in NFL? And lastly, this is the nail in the coffin: > The apps can be improved and content discovery mechanisms can be implemented. What is "fundamentally worse" about federated social media? The fact that the apps are worse and the content discovery mechanisms aren't implemented. That's the magic and value in social media. You get it right, you win (see tiktok). You tweak it and get it wrong, people leave (see Facebook). You don't have it? People stay where they are, because I want to see videos of pandas, otters and frogs with knitted sweaters even though I didn't know I wanted the latter until I saw it.
rchaud 3y ago
The same thing happens for Goal.com, redirects to the same site.

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...
    - rglullis 3y ago
      The cost of running the infra is negligible compared with the potential of whatever idea they will come up with.
  - maccard 3y ago
    That doesn't require a federated social network though, that's what https://www.mavs.com/ https://www.mavs.com/ can be.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      If they just use a website, they have to put links to Youtube to share videos, or Twitter links to share news, or Facebook if they want to run a promotion/poll. By running their own federated social media server, they get to be in control of the conversation. (I'm telling you, sometimes these responses feel like talking with the MS exec who said that internet search was not needed because people had bookmarks)
      - maccard 3y ago
        You're missing the point though. The users are already on the website, and on twitter, YouTube and tiktok. Those platforms have tools to control the conversation already. Federated Social Media is a technical solution to a people problem. > sometimes these responses feel like talking with the MS exec who said that internet search was not needed because people had bookmarks And likewise, these responses feel like talking with a door to door salesperson. If your only argument is that you can have a worse experience, but be in control of it, you're not going to win the argument.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > The users are already on the website, and on twitter, YouTube and tiktok. There is a non-negligible number of people who are leaving Twitter and are trying to get rid of Youtube. > worse experience Why? Don't give me arguments based on circumstances. Mastodon is not the endgame here. The apps can be improved and content discovery mechanisms can be implemented. What is "fundamentally worse" about federated social media?
        maccard 3y ago
        Your definition of non-negligible is my definition of insignificant or irrelevant. I'm still on X, and despite the people I follow declaring they're leaving, it's still the place to be. They all still post. > Why? Don't give me arguments based on circumstances. You're the one claiming it's an improvement, the onus is on you to convince me why it's an improved experience. That said, I'm happy to give you my perspective. Centralised services collect and colocate the information. If I follow the mavericks, i likelt want to be kept up to date with other stuff going with the NBA. Twitter, Instagram, tiktok do that in a way that hundreds of millions of people find valuable. If I want a source of news owned by mavericks, I can visit their website already. That exists, right now, for me to go and look at. There's the question of "which mark Cuban" - is markcuban@mavs the right one, or markcuban@nba or markcuban@cuban (which has no affiliation to either the NBA, Mark Cuban or the mavericks). X has this (well, it had it and then fucked it), tiktok has this, threads has this solved. If I go and register markcuban@threads, and start posting impersonating mark Cuban, meta will step in (I imagine). You may not want that, but he does, meta does, and millions of people who use their services do. For services like YouTube, they provide an Audience for NBA fans to show similar content to - you think the NBA doesn't want to get eyeballs from people who are interested in NFL? And lastly, this is the nail in the coffin: > The apps can be improved and content discovery mechanisms can be implemented. What is "fundamentally worse" about federated social media? The fact that the apps are worse and the content discovery mechanisms aren't implemented. That's the magic and value in social media. You get it right, you win (see tiktok). You tweak it and get it wrong, people leave (see Facebook). You don't have it? People stay where they are, because I want to see videos of pandas, otters and frogs with knitted sweaters even though I didn't know I wanted the latter until I saw it.

rchaud 3y ago

The same thing happens for Goal.com, redirects to the same site.