Live data from Hacker News

NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

foxbusiness.com

331–340 of 477 posts

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because I’m sure you know what's best for billions of Chinese. They must be all dying to overthrow their government. Your rhetoric is naive at best and racist at worst. It’s racist because you are disenfranchising the potential voice and sovereignty of a whole ethnicity and country because private interests in your own country can’t get their way over there. The hong kong protestors have started getting their way…

It's weird to hear you describe Xi Jinping's dictatorship as the voice and sovereignty of the people.

You'd be surprised how much support the government has in China, among Chinese people, even if they oppress some of their people. But just because they don't hold public elections doesn't mean they do not draw their legitimacy from the people. And furthermore, if they did not have a legitimate claim to power the people of China can overthrow them, not a foreigner. They don't need the US to install a leader for them.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose. I don’t understand this. They could lost all their market in China which is not a small number and in return, long-term financially, nothing. It is not like Chinese people can’t live without it. There are more than enough entertainments for Chinese people to enjoy.

Basketball is popular in China. The NBA is the premier league. It doesn't need China. If you want to see the best or play with the best, it will be the NBA. If the CCP (China Communist Party) wants to spoil the entertainment of the citizenry, that's their problem. The NBA can go right back into China whenever the winds change. On the other hand, if the NBA doesn't stand up to China, a large part of their core audienc…

This is another thing I feel uneasy about, this is just a basketball league, why does it have to force people to pick a side?

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#333
post #20

The NBA really needs to grow a spine on this one. They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose. It will just be one more reminder for the populace that their current government restricts them from luxuries the rest of the world gets to experience. And if that doesn't bother them, good riddance I guess, it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league th…

What do you mean? Adam Silver wrote a statement supporting Morey's right to free speech, and then doubled down on it after receiving flak for his free speech support.

I think the point was the NBA needs to take a stance on HK itself, in support of democracy.

"We support free speech" is a cop-out, because China is happy for you to support free speech, as long as you don't say anything they don't like. It would be a stronger stance to say, "Actually, we think Morey was right", especially if it's going to cost them money to do so.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because I’m sure you know what's best for billions of Chinese. They must be all dying to overthrow their government. Your rhetoric is naive at best and racist at worst. It’s racist because you are disenfranchising the potential voice and sovereignty of a whole ethnicity and country because private interests in your own country can’t get their way over there. The hong kong protestors have started getting their way…

There is a difference between the Chinese government and the Chinese people. The parent is (presumably) calling for action against the Chinese government, because what the Chinese government wants is harmful to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and other basic rights. This is not an attack on the Chinese people. In general, one has to be careful about conflating the interests of the Chinese government and the C…

Yes and I'm saying it's presumptuous to say that the Chinese (people) do not support their own government and want them out as much as a foreigner who is not subject to the life outside the comforts of The United States (or whatever other Western democracy).

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaire's shouldn't exist. Name literally one benefit of having a billionaire in our society. Any one thing we wouldn't otherwise have.

Benefit #1: Make a top list of billionaires and have people gossip about it. #2 Sell regular folks the idea that they _may_ one day become billionaires too, convince them that they should vote down any tax increase on the 1%; Continue brainwashing them that there's plenty of room at the top, maybe, just maybe room opens up for them as well. #3 Monetize on the image of billionaires and sell luxury goods and billionair…

Are these supposed to be benefits?

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it. If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally ri…

You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed. That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework…

Their actions also go against deontological ethics as well.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because I’m sure you know what's best for billions of Chinese. They must be all dying to overthrow their government. Your rhetoric is naive at best and racist at worst. It’s racist because you are disenfranchising the potential voice and sovereignty of a whole ethnicity and country because private interests in your own country can’t get their way over there. The hong kong protestors have started getting their way…

Might seem persnickety, but criticism of mainland China can't be racism because Taiwanese are the same race and people aren't criticising them for this kind of thing (because they don't do it). It's really not even criticism of the Chinese people, who have no say in the matter either way and tend to be harshly punished for disagreeing. In the end it's all just criticism of a specific government. Doesn't need to go fu…

And the vast majority of Chinese people in China do support the government, for doing, among other things, bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty. The primary beneficiary of the Chinese government is the Chinese people there, and attacking the government is an indirect attack on the people there because The USA government, Australia, or any other non China government is not going to take after Chinese citizens.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#338
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the NBA has stand up and to do the right thing, I'm not sure that "incremental" is the correct description of the league's profits. I read an article very recently (NY Times, maybe?) that laid out the numbers, and the amount of money the NBA earns in China dwarfs its U.S. revenue. not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league It already has basketball leagues. And considering…

>the amount of money the NBA earns in China dwarfs its U.S. revenue. Source? >It already has basketball leagues. I guess it's a good thing I didn't say they don't. Partial quoting to try to make a point where there isn't one isn't very cool. >And considering that China has exported star players to the NBA, it's certainly a possibility. It's exported exactly one star: yao Ming, and one slightly above average player in…

China doesn't need the NBA nearly as much as the NBA wants China's money. Just as I would mildly like to be as good of bicyclist as my neighbor who has devoted time to that rather than a career, I see no reason why China couldn't easily frame the NBA in some sort of a similar manner while pouring a bit of cash into developing a "good enough" domestic league that has the added bonus of being Chinese. Even if the Chinese populace currently held high admiration for NBA players, I suspect this opinion if fairly malleable - particularly when you can point out a very clear and plausible path to de facto world economic and military supremacy as a consolation prize.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaire's shouldn't exist. Name literally one benefit of having a billionaire in our society. Any one thing we wouldn't otherwise have.

The benefit of billionaires existing is that they made extraordinarily valuable businesses. Take Steve Jobs or Bill Gates - if they didn’t exist then Apple and Microsoft wouldn’t either. If Notch didn’t exist then neither would Minecraft. If you create something (a company, a video game, other IP), and people value that thing at a billion dollars, then you’re a billionaire. Notch became a billionaire after selling Mi…

> The benefit of billionaires existing is that they made extraordinarily valuable businesses.

Debatable depending which business, and also highly subjective. Amazon is valuable to Wall Street, yes most certainly. It also generates massive amounts of garbage, pollution, and human suffering. Are we including those in the value statement or are we going by the capitalist axiom that as long as the number went upward, the non-financial cost doesn't matter?

> If you create something (a company, a video game, other IP), and people value that thing at a billion dollars, then you’re a billionaire. Notch became a billionaire after selling Minecraft because almost 100 million people play it.

So the system works because the system is working? This is circular logic at it's finest. I don't care what Microsoft decided Minecraft was worth, they're an equally diseased part of a diseased system. It's like saying "this cancerous tumor isn't a problem, because the other cancerous tumor vouched for it." So what? I don't place value on the opinions of capitalists on the value of the capitalist system. Can you justify it without citing a capitalist?

> What do you expect should happen if someone creates a thing of value worth a billion dollars? Do you not want these things to be created? Do you not want them to be sold? (Ownership has to change hands eventually; people don’t live forever). How are you expecting society would work?

You're working all of this from the viewpoint that markets, capitalism, and competition are the only ways to generate stuff. Not only is that not the case, and I would cite the entire open source community as evidence to that fact, but I reject outright the assertions that:

1) The only things that have value are the ones where the value is expressed in currency

2) That the only arbiters of value are those who place values in the form of currency

There are tons of examples of things created with no monetization plan that are great. There are tons more things created with a monetization plan out of necessity, because without one they could not exist.

Again and again criticism of capitalism is met with this assertion that "well things have value and therefore we need to respect the market" and I flatly reject that. We're all locked in the same prison, every idea, every concept rung through this machine that decides whether or not something deserves to exist by it's ability to contribute to a market. A market built by people, allegedly for people, that is for some reason simply beyond reproach. Capitalism has ballooned to practically another religion, and you are a follower of it, so dedicated to it's holy texts you've entirely forgotten that human civilization existed for THOUSANDS of years before we had a bloody market.

Sod your market.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#340
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the second time I think I've seen this on hackernews in two days, no one is conflating the two anymore or less than when someone says, "America runs terrorist campaigns in the Middle East." People understand that the meaning is the state, nothing is a monolith although everybody must step up to the table and own up to the fact that we are all in part responsible for the actions of our comminutes. We know who…

I think the parent (chrischen's comment) was conflating the two.

What's being conflated is that somehow the government there does not represent the people. They do, maybe not in the way Americans like, but Americans don't pay taxes to China, and Americans do not take care of the Chinese. The Chinese government takes care of the Chinese there. Whether they do it effectively is another matter, but one thing's for certain is that a Chinese person has more agency within the Chinese government than they do with the American government (or any foreign government/interests for that matter). So to impose the values of one culture on another without taking in their input is racism.

Yes there are other Chinese in countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan, but that's not the point here. Just because the racism doesn't target those Chinese doesn't mean there is a sense of cultural and moral superiority being levied on a different culture here.

Keep in mind that Singapore is also very authoritarian, but does not get as much flak for whatever reason (probably because they are not rivaling the US).

Post reply on HN