Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

mux.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 241 posts

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#111

Post by quelltext »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #99
duskwuff wrote: post #24

So, a lot of users in this thread seem to be misunderstanding what Mux is, and how the "soccer pirates" interact with their service. Let me clarify: Mux is a streaming infrastructure provider. They provide services for companies who want to stream video to their users -- news web sites, video chat services, etc. Kind of like web hosting, but specifically for video. They are not a video content provider; they do not s…

Regardless, the tone of the post made me dislike Mux, whereas before I had a neutral opinion of them. I'm left wondering if they also forward these details to the copyright holders or the FBI.

It would have been better for the post to put the motivation up front, and then explain how they deal with the problem, instead of the other way round but I'm not sure what issues you have with the tone.

What they do here (preventing "piracy" and reducing cost) is no different from what other hosting platforms do.

FWIW, I didn't get a bad impression and learned about MUX in the first place (good).

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#112

Post by Larrikin »

emacdona wrote: post #8

Sigh... f*ck sports leagues/governing bodies. The reason some honest people pirate streams for sporting events is because they make it so annoying to pay for them. Some examples... I live in the US. I briefly took an interest in the EPL. If I wanted to watch all EPL games (or have the option of watching any particular EPL game), I'd have to subscribe to Peacock _and_ Fubo -- and I'm still not sure that gets me all ga…

I hope that whoever the executives are over at the MLB who decided that blacking out games on streaming services was a good idea, are well into their 60s and 70s and will be dying or retiring soon.

I lived a ten minute walk from the Cubs' stadium and really wanted to watch every game. I moved to Chicago the year before they won the world series and got to experience all the build up, so was extremely excited to follow them.

But even though I had a MLB.tv subscription, from T-Mobile, it was completely useless the entire time I lived in Chicago. The Cubs' games were on an over the air network, WGN, for decades, so I had to spend money for a one time expense of an antennae to be privileged to watch some games and the added inconvenience of switching away from my streaming box.

Soon after they won the world series, they moved to a cable only network Marquee. I would have been forced to pay for cable to get the same shitty experience of watching only some games. I ended up only ever watching games I was physically at or when a game aligned with the exact time I happened to be at a bar with it on in the background.

Blackout rules feel like a completely untenable situation if baseball wants anyone under 45 to get in to the sport.

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#113

Post by toast0 »

komali2 wrote: post #95
duskwuff wrote: post #24

So, a lot of users in this thread seem to be misunderstanding what Mux is, and how the "soccer pirates" interact with their service. Let me clarify: Mux is a streaming infrastructure provider. They provide services for companies who want to stream video to their users -- news web sites, video chat services, etc. Kind of like web hosting, but specifically for video. They are not a video content provider; they do not s…

In that case, isn't this a similar situation platforms like Twitter or Youtube find themselves in, where they don't want to take full responsibility for moderation or suddenly they're liable for all the harmful content on their platforms, but on the other hand they're forced to moderate just enough to avoid governments forcing them to be on the hook? It seems like such a weird place to be in.

Section 230 seems to say they can moderate if they want, and have no obligation to do so, or to not do so.

Seems like they're motivated to moderate in this case, because this usage costs them money and the users that sign up for this type of usage tend not to pay their bills.

IMHO, it might make more sense to work on usage tiers, sales calls, and collecting good payment before incurring large costs, more than a pipeline to inspect user content, including sending it to an uninvolved third party (Google Vision), but maybe that's just me.

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#114

Post by duskwuff »

jaimex2 wrote: post #103
komali2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, isn't this a similar situation platforms like Twitter or Youtube find themselves in, where they don't want to take full responsibility for moderation or suddenly they're liable for all the harmful content on their platforms, but on the other hand they're forced to moderate just enough to avoid governments forcing them to be on the hook? It seems like such a weird place to be in.

Agreed. Why you would accept stopping the buck and not work with your legal team to proxy litigation the same way all big tech does is beyond me.

1) You can't effectively proxy litigation to J. Random Pirate with fake contact information and a stolen credit card.

2) Even if you did, you're still out the cost of the services they used, which can be considerable (especially if you let their service keep running until the DMCA notices show up).

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#117

Post by ptmcc »

Larrikin wrote: post #112
emacdona wrote: post #8

Sigh... f*ck sports leagues/governing bodies. The reason some honest people pirate streams for sporting events is because they make it so annoying to pay for them. Some examples... I live in the US. I briefly took an interest in the EPL. If I wanted to watch all EPL games (or have the option of watching any particular EPL game), I'd have to subscribe to Peacock _and_ Fubo -- and I'm still not sure that gets me all ga…

I hope that whoever the executives are over at the MLB who decided that blacking out games on streaming services was a good idea, are well into their 60s and 70s and will be dying or retiring soon. I lived a ten minute walk from the Cubs' stadium and really wanted to watch every game. I moved to Chicago the year before they won the world series and got to experience all the build up, so was extremely excited to follo…

You're completely right, and as a baseball fan myself I deeply sympathize, but it's not so much MLB that is the problem (today) but the patchwork of cable-based Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) that have contracts for exclusive broadcast rights from MLB that were inked years ago. In a lot of cases teams even have ownership stakes in their own RSN. So now all the local broadcast rights (and $$$) belong to these RSNs instead of MLB themselves. And most/all of them broadcast exclusively on cable and offer limited-to-no streaming options.

There's been some hinting from MLB that they know blackouts are painful for fans, but without being able to alter/cancel the RSN contracts they're up shit creek, legally speaking.

What's interesting right now is that Diamond Sports Group (Bally Sports) just recently declared bankruptcy and they own/operate the RSNs for almost half of MLB teams. They are behind on their rights payments and MLB is trying to forcibly get broadcast rights back so they can presumably stream on mlb.tv. If that happens it could give MLB some power and put the issue more front and center. Maybe. Here's hoping.

And I don't mean to white knight MLB here, they made this bed for themselves by making exclusive deals with RSNs in the past. But now it's not as easy as MLB just ending blackouts by decree. Not without a lot of lawsuits.

But someday it has to happen. For the good of the game and fanbase. Please be soon.

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#118

Post by ablation »

emacdona wrote: post #8

Sigh... f*ck sports leagues/governing bodies. The reason some honest people pirate streams for sporting events is because they make it so annoying to pay for them. Some examples... I live in the US. I briefly took an interest in the EPL. If I wanted to watch all EPL games (or have the option of watching any particular EPL game), I'd have to subscribe to Peacock _and_ Fubo -- and I'm still not sure that gets me all ga…

I feel for you. Here, GCN+ (or GCN+ Eurosport as it’s officially branded as a partnership being both owned by Warner Bros. Discovery along with BT Sport) has literally everything - from all the grand tours, to classics and even the most insignificant 1.2 and 2.2 ranked events. And all for a fair price. I didn’t even consider that in other territories the rights might be snapped up piecemeal style. That’s a shame.

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#119

Post by Larrikin »

ptmcc wrote: post #117
Larrikin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that whoever the executives are over at the MLB who decided that blacking out games on streaming services was a good idea, are well into their 60s and 70s and will be dying or retiring soon. I lived a ten minute walk from the Cubs' stadium and really wanted to watch every game. I moved to Chicago the year before they won the world series and got to experience all the build up, so was extremely excited to follo…

You're completely right, and as a baseball fan myself I deeply sympathize, but it's not so much MLB that is the problem (today) but the patchwork of cable-based Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) that have contracts for exclusive broadcast rights from MLB that were inked years ago. In a lot of cases teams even have ownership stakes in their own RSN. So now all the local broadcast rights (and $$$) belong to these RSNs in…

Seems like Marquee has some relationship to Bally and Sinclair so hopefully the bankruptcy helps. But it is absolutely disgusting to me that the network was created just to make it harder to watch Cubs' games so they could make more money after decades of them being free to watch. It wasn't some old regional network deal, the network was created in 2020 when cord cutting was well underway.

Re: We glued together content moderation to stop soccer pirates

#120

Post by vxNsr »

yowlingcat wrote: post #71
Mandatum wrote: post #40

Wow. n8n in production. Bold.

This was also my reaction. I have not seen it in production before. With that said, I'm not saying that as a value judgment -- and I guess I'd be curious if you'd be skeptical of making that choice.

I’m curious to know why. This is first I’m hearing of it but it doesn’t look too bad, is it just that it’s less mature than other workflow automations?
Post reply on HN