Not Just America: CEO Of Esports Org In India Says COVID-19 Resulted In Explosive Growth
Furnished content.
While we've covered the growth of esports throughout the world for some time, it's also true that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in that growth accelerating with incredible speed. Back in March and April, when states began shutting down because we had -- checks notes -- 20k to 30k new COVID cases per day, esports really took off. Due to shut downs, IRL professional and college sports shut down too. The result is that Americans who thirst to watch competition dove headlong into esports broadcasts, with participation and viewership clipping at 20% growth month over month. An entire economy sprung up around the industry as well, with streaming companies and broadcasters catching up to the sudden rise in interest.But if you thought this was a uniquely American thing, you're wrong. And if you think that this wave is going to crest once we're all putting vaccine needles in our arms, I think you're wrong about that, too. An Indian sporting news site recently did an interview with the CEO of Skyesports, a prominent esports company in India. While you will have to forgive some translation wonkiness in them, two questions and answers jumped out at me as I read the interview. The first was about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on esports' growth in India.Q. Did Covid-19 really help esports in India as much as people say? Or were you expecting this kind of growth already?Definitely, agree. Covid19 impact has amplified the gaming scene across the world. Our Viewership and user base increased 10x and we are seeing a 20x growth rate in terms of revenues for this year alone. We have created more IPs and all of this was due to covid situation. Twenty times growth is the sort of thing industry captains salivate for. And, while it is tough to get too excited about the silver linings of a pandemic that has killed and hurt so many people, it is still true that this growth in esports is exciting for fans. With growth comes better competition, more professional broadcasts, deeper market penetration, and jobs and opportunities.This pandemic is going to go away some day. But esports' growth might be here to stay. Why? Well, because in many markets, such as in India, all of this growth still hasn't scratched the surface of the potential market.Q. Has Skyesports thought of expanding into South Asia? Where in specific?A:In India, esports are explored by only less than 10%. There is more to explore in India before we think about stepping foot in the South Asia region. We want to grass-root in India at the largest level before thinking of other regions and we are focusing the most to conquer India. We want to take esports to nook and corner. It's but one anecdotal example, but an important one. Given how ripe the Indian marketplace is, and how important its economy and industries are on the world stage, an explosion of esports there is a sign of worldwide growth as well. And, the horrors of this pandemic aside, that's fun for us fans.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 28-Oct-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Zuckerberg And Facebook Throw The Open Internet Under The Bus; Support Section 230 Reform
Furnished content.
This shouldn't be much of a surprise, unfortunately, but it appears that once again Facebook is the first to crack under political pressure, and has decided to sell out the open internet and free speech online. In testimony Mark Zuckerberg is planning to give tomorrow to the Senate Commerce Committee, he's going to say a few nice things about Section 230, immediately followed by him saying the company now supports reforming the law. The praise for Section 230 is accurate, but it doesn't much matter when he takes it back immediately:However, the debate about Section 230 shows that people of all political persuasions areunhappy with the status quo. People want to know that companies are taking responsibility forcombatting harmful contentespecially illegal activityon their platforms. They want to knowthat when platforms remove content, they are doing so fairly and transparently. And they want tomake sure that platforms are held accountable. This ignores that people are unhappy for contradictory reasons. Some are unhappy because sites are taking down propaganda and disinformation. Others are upset that they're not taking down propaganda and disinformation (or not taking it down fast enough). NOTHING will satisfy everyone. Pretending that there's some magical reform that will work is crazy talk.But here's the real problem. Whatever nuance there is to be discussed here, whatever recognition of the problems this will cause, the following paragraph will be seen as declaring open season on Section 230 because "even Facebook supports changing the law."Section 230 made it possible for every major internet service to be built and ensured importantvalues like free expression and openness were part of how platforms operate. Changing it is asignificant decision. However, I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it'sworking as intended. We support the ideas around transparency and industry collaboration thatare being discussed in some of the current bipartisan proposals, and I look forward to ameaningful dialogue about how we might update the law to deal with the problems we facetoday. This is nonsense. It is working as intended. It's allowing companies to make their own decisions, and to experiment with different moderation regimes. That many people are unhappy with those choices is the very nature of content moderation. It's not like Congress is going to step in and create rules that work any better. It will only create rules that work worse.At Facebook, we don't think tech companies should be making so many decisions about theseimportant issues alone. I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators,which is why in March last year I called for regulation on harmful content, privacy, elections,and data portability. We stand ready to work with Congress on what regulation could look like inthese areas. By updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what's best about itthefreedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new thingswhile alsoprotecting society from broader harms. I would encourage this Committee and other stakeholdersto make sure that any changes do not have unintended consequences that stifle expression orimpede innovation. And, yes, he's repeating what he's said before, knowing full fucking well that any regulations that Congress puts in place will simply serve to lock in Facebook's position. Facebook can handle the compliance costs. The upstart companies that might disrupt Facebook will have a much harder time.Make no mistake about it: this is Mark Zuckerberg pulling up the innovation ladder he climbed behind him.This probably isn't a huge surprise. Facebook's vocal support for FOSTA -- the law that amended Section 230 and put lives at risk -- was only a first step. I was told, point blank, by a Facebook lobbyist that the company needed to support that "minor" change to Section 230 or Congress would have passed something even worse. And here we are, with Congress seeing Facebook's initial caving not as a way to be satiated, but rather as the go-ahead to continue dismantling the framework of an open internet.And, once again, here's Facebook, happily willing to go along with it.Facebook is throwing the open internet under the bus -- in part gleefully, as so-called "critics" of Facebook stupidly demanded "reforms to Section 230" incorrectly believing that 230 was a "special subsidy" for Facebook. Facebook doesn't need it any more, but all of the people who called for such reforms are now going to help cement Facebook's position of dominance.Unfortunately, this is likely to be the focus of tomorrow's hearing, with Senators taking this as permission to destroy the open internet. It is likely that they will ignore fellow panelist Jack Dorsey giving the opposing message that Section 230 is necessary to enable new competitors and free speech on an open internet:As we consider developing new legislative frameworks, or committing to self-regulationmodels for content moderation, we should remember that Section 230 has enabled newcompaniessmall ones seeded with an ideato build and compete with established companiesglobally. Eroding the foundation of Section 230 could collapse how we communicate on theInternet, leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies.We should also be mindful that undermining Section 230 will result in far more removalof online speech and impose severe limitations on our collective ability to address harmfulcontent and protect people online. I do not think anyone in this room or the American peoplewant less free speech or more abuse and harassment online. Instead, what I hear from people isthat they want to be able to trust the services they are using. That's the right message and an accurate one. And it will be stomped on by the message from Zuckerberg agreeing to throw the open internet under a speeding bus.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 28-Oct-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|