Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglullis | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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), 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).

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.

> 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.

Yeah, I mean that these orgs could have their own servers and set it up for federation.

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.

> I imagine they could set up their own social network,

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.

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.

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

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?

What is the actual value of that for either mark Cuban or a user?

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..."?

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.

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-reve... [2]: https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2023/06/01/nba-tv-righ...

The cost of running the infra is negligible compared with the potential of whatever idea they will come up with.

That doesn't require a federated social network though, that's what https://www.mavs.com/ can be.

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)

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.

> 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?

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.

> They all still post.

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.

Why not just their own website.

In Canada they actually redirect their own website to a third party (sportingNews.com). It's bizarre.

Do you mean "their own domain"?

I mean own website on their own domain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com