There's also a very strong growing tech and design presence.
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.
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.
Musk told advertisers to go fuck themselves.
Zuck told you you're a dumbfuck for giving him your data. (Look up the IM chat.)
I used to agree with you, but Zuck said that many, many years ago -- I'm not saying Zuck has changed, but it's not really accurate to brandish something he said in 2004 (as a 19 year old college student) as an accurate portrayal of him now.
Sure, disregard what the founder said when he initially founded the company. Just, oh I don't know, give a little weight to all that the company -- not said mind you -- but actually did in the last twenty years with regards to the data in question. Recalling all the scandals within that period, you'll find that they nicely line up with that sentiment that was expressed by the founder twenty years ago.
You can say he's no worse than Musk perhaps, but going around telling people to disregard what someone said some time ago when the quote actually corroborates all the action taken since then is a rather bad faith interpretation of the author's intent.
And adding caveats like "I'm not saying Zuck has changed" just comes off as a weird cop-out. When someone is quoting that statement, they are explicitly arguing that he hasn't changed. So unless you're arguing that he has changed, the content of your comment is almost entirely vacuous.
My main point is that you can't really judge someone by something they said 19 years ago, as a young & naive startup founder. I don't know about yourself, but I've definitely said things over a decade ago that I find quite embarrassing now.
There are much more pressing points to highlight, some of which your comment discusses, but hand-picking decades-old quotes feels quite vacuous in itself.
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?
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.
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), 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).
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.
Like you said, The Athletic already has a place of discussion which pales in comparison with the Fediverse. Imagine if they transformed their forums into a Lemmy-compatible system, and each of their journalists had their own @theathletic handle. They would be at the same time:
- keeping control of their social media presence
- stop contributing to someone else's platform
- creating opportunities for extra revenue based on their extended audience.
The point is not running their own network to have everyone there, the idea is to have a federated instance where they set up accounts for their teams, coaches, players, etc.
What is more valuable, brand-wise? "Follow @lebron@threads.net" or "follow @lebron@nba.com"?
> they'd have to manage a social network
Pretty sure they already have a sizeable team dedicated to managing/running their social media accounts and presence?
> companies would rather deal with someone they can call to fix things.
Of course, just like they have someone to manage their website, the mobile app development, etc, etc.
Shit, does anyone know how I could pitch this to him?
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..."?
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.
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-reve... [2]: https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2023/06/01/nba-tv-righ...
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)
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.
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?
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.
That's objectively false. Traffic has gone down to the point that they dropped about 10 spots in list of most visited/accessed websites.
> the onus is on you to convince me why it's an improved experience.
On open networks, I have:
- No ads.
- No data tracking.
- No algorithm that promotes content that I do not want to see (fine, Twitter "solved" this by separating the followers from "for you" tabs).
- assurance that I won't be treated as a second class citizen unless I pay for a "blue check"
> There's the question of "which mark Cuban"
This is one of the criticisms that have no root in practical reality. Basically everyone that's left Twitter for Mastodon has written a post saying "here's my new handle". And has any high-profile figure started a conversation with anyone via social media, without any form of previous introduction or method to check their claims?
> you think the NBA doesn't want to get eyeballs from people who are interested in NFL?
Why do you think that wouldn't be possible in a federated/distributed network? Individuals will pull the content to their feeds according to their interests and propagate further to their network. The content might be originated in separate central points, but they end up diffused through the network just the same.
> The fact that the apps are worse and the content discovery mechanisms aren't implemented.
This is circumstantial, not fundamental.