X Adds More Sports Engagement Options to Maintain Community Engagement
This story was originally published on Social Media Today. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Social Media Today newsletter.
With Meta making a bigger push to lure sports communities over to its apps, X is looking to fight back, by adding various new sports engagement options which it hopes will enhance game day interaction in the app.
X has been working on this since November last year, when it launched its new 'NFL Portal' element, which is designed to make it easier for users to stay up to date with key discussions around live NFL matches.
As you can see in this example, the NFL Portal brings together posts from NFL teams, as well as key commentators, while also providing access to game schedules, live scores and stats.
X added the same for NBA matches in April this year:
And in the last week, X has also added some additional sports engagement elements, including updated share cards for sports games, and new score tracker notes on relevant posts.
I mean, maybe you wouldn't want that, if you were hoping to catch the replay, but if you're looking up the event hashtag, you're likely fine with the score being spoiled.
X users can also dock conversations about a live match, so they can keep on top of the discussion while X's video feed provides another means to share highlights in-stream.
X will be hoping that this enhanced focus on sports discussion will prompt more engagement, and keep its top sports communities from migrating to other platforms instead.
Because as noted, Meta's making a push for this audience as well.
Meta already has a deal in place with the UFC, which will see exclusive, live content shared to Threads, while Threads now also has its own live score displays for in progress sporting events, which is a first step towards a similar game day hub like X.
Meta has also made a specific point of highlighting that sports discussion is rising fast in the app, with some sports-related communities growing by millions in a matter of months. And amid the recent NBA Finals fanfare, Threads also hosted a live chat with ESPN's Malika Andrews to promote the event.
In combination, you can see how Threads is looking to make inroads with this key discussion element, as another effort to put pressure on X.
And given that sports is the biggest topic of discussion on X, that makes a lot of sense:
The fact that X is now looking to add more sports engagement elements, and fast, suggests that Threads likely is making some progress on this front, and building its own sports-based communities, causing engagement challenges for the app.
And if Threads can become more of a focal point for live sports discussion, that could fast become a major issue for Elon's social media project, which now runs the risk of becoming a bigger version of Parler or Truth Social, where political discussion becomes the domineering focus of the app.
I suspect that many X users are not interested in such, but have largely been able to ignore it, in order to maintain their established sports communities. But if those groups start to fragment, and re-seed themselves on Threads instead, that could see a big chunk of X's usage filter away over time.
I'd suggest that this is already happening, hence X's rethink of its sports elements, and the broader stats which show a decline in X usage.
I also think that X is putting too much reliance on its Grok AI chatbot to drive engagement. Just this week, LinkedIn CEO Ryan Roslansky noted that LinkedIn's AI-generated post creation tools aren't catching on as it had hoped they would, which could point to a broader shift away from AI as a creation tool.
Don't get me wrong, there's clearly value in AI for some elements, including analytics, ad targeting, product image generation, etc. But for personal, creative use, in regards to providing post text options, reimagining images, generating video, etc. I don't think that there's going to be as much value in these aspects, from a general user standpoint.
The risk then is that by making these tools more readily available in-stream, platforms will eventually become more and more inundated by AI slop, which will turn users away. You can already see this starting on TikTok, where AI-generated video posts (mostly created in Google Veo), lacking in originality or creativity, and are starting to overtake human-created content. Yet, it's the human-created content that facilitates connection and engagement, because there's nothing unique about animated video generated from a text prompt. Anyone can do it, with the only real differentiator being in the concept and the writing behind it. And standing out in that respect is much more difficult.
X's continued push on Grok could lead to the same, and it'll be interesting to see how the platform looks to counter engagement losses with more features designed to enhance the user experience, in variance to this.
Because if X starts losing its key discussion groups, it's going to lose, period.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
Meta's Xbox-Branded Quest 3S Just Sold Out for All the Wrong Reasons
Everyone loves limited-edition stuff. There's Sony's 30th anniversary PS5, or Analogue's many limited edition Pocket handhelds, or— I don't know—the Shamrock f***ing Shake. But there's one type of person who loves limited-edition stuff more than your average consumer, and it's a scalper. For proof of that, see Meta's recently released Xbox-branded Quest 3S. See Meta Quest Xbox Edition at Best Buy In case you missed it, Meta's new limited-edition Quest 3S bundle just recently sold out, which on the surface sounds like a great thing for VR and XR. You may be tempted to say, 'Oh, wow! People really like XR headsets, huh?' But before you do that, it may also be worth taking a short gander at eBay, because the resale market over there paints a slightly more cynical picture. It's full of Xbox-branded Quest 3S bundles, folks—and they ain't just giving them away. This bundle, for reference, retails at $399, and the average price I'm seeing on eBay is about $600, though sometimes a little more or a little less. Here is the sad state of affairs on eBay as of the time of typing these words: The list goes on and on, unfortunately, which tells me one thing: the scalpers had a field day with this thing. And that's just kind of sad. It's not sad that someone would want to make money from reselling a limited-edition gadget—as annoying as scalpers are, I can't blame anyone for having a side hustle in this economy. But it is sad that Meta seemingly didn't do much to preserve its limited-edition Quest 3S for XR nerds who unequivocally deserve first dibs. It's also maybe a little sad—as someone who borders on said XR nerd identity—that the race to being out of stock may not actually be driven by real demand. XR headsets, while not the most crucial gadget in the world, are pretty cool and deserve more shine than they get, in my humble opinion. It would have been nice to see them really break through with a little help from an Xbox marketing gimmick. But as always, the almighty aftermarket prevails. To be fair, I'm sure not all of the sales were scalpers trying to make a buck off the XR headset's rarity. Some people, I presume, bought it because it's a pretty good deal for getting into XR—you get a sleek black headset with Xbox green details, Meta's Elite Strap for your head, and a limited-edition Xbox controller to top it off. Based on the retail price of all of that, this bundle saves you somewhere in the ballpark of $95. Some people bought this bundle because of Xbox, too. Here's one instance in which someone seems to have pulled the trigger on this bundle just for the controller. Honestly… respect. That's much more pure than trying to spin the whole thing around for $200. The idea that someone buys the new Quest colorway just to nab the limited edition Xbox Controller and sell the rest is really comical.. — SadlyItsDadley (@SadlyItsBradley) June 27, 2025Listen, scalpers are an inevitable fact of life nowadays when you're buying any gadget that's even slightly in demand. Like it or not, that's just the world we live in—one colored by bots and dropshipping. But I'd be lying if I said that it wouldn't have been nice to see a little effort on Meta's part to prevent that. It can be done! Just look at the Switch 2 launch. People have been resorting to cartoonish levels of robbery to get their hands on it—that's how in-demand this thing is—but Nintendo, with a little bit of forethought, has kept the scourge of scalpers to a dull roar. I guess Meta probably doesn't care that much either way, though. A sale is a sale, whether it ends up on eBay or on your dorky XR- and Xbox-loving head. Sadly, if you're in the latter camp, it looks like the aftermarket is your only option right now. Thanks, Zuckerberg. Just because you look like a dropshipper doesn't mean you have to act like one. See Meta Quest Xbox Edition at Best Buy
The Verge
2 hours ago
- The Verge
Did AI companies win a fight with authors? Technically
In the past week, big AI companies have — in theory — chalked up two big legal wins. But things are not quite as straightforward as they may seem, and copyright law hasn't been this exciting since last month's showdown at the Library of Congress. First, Judge William Alsup ruled it was fair use for Anthropic to train on a series of authors' books. Then, Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed another group of authors' complaint against Meta for training on their books. Yet far from settling the legal conundrums around modern AI, these rulings might have just made things even more complicated. Both cases are indeed qualified victories for Meta and Anthropic. And at least one judge — Alsup — seems sympathetic to some of the AI industry's core arguments about copyright. But that same ruling railed against the startup's use of pirated media, leaving it potentially on the hook for massive financial damage. (Anthropic even admitted it did not initially purchase a copy of every book it used.) Meanwhile, the Meta ruling asserted that because a flood of AI content could crowd out human artists, the entire field of AI system training might be fundamentally at odds with fair use. And neither case addressed one of the biggest questions about generative AI: when does its output infringe copyright, and who's on the hook if it does? Alsup and Chhabria (incidentally both in the Northern District of California) were ruling on relatively similar sets of facts. Meta and Anthropic both pirated huge collections of copyright-protected books to build a training dataset for their large language models Llama and Claude. Anthropic later did an about-face and started legally purchasing books, tearing the covers off to 'destroy' the original copy, and scanning the text. The authors argued that, in addition to the initial piracy, the training process constituted an unlawful and unauthorized use of their work. Meta and Anthropic countered that this database-building and LLM-training constituted fair use. Both judges basically agreed that LLMs meet one central requirement for fair use: they transform the source material into something new. Alsup called using books to train Claude 'exceedingly transformative,' and Chhabria concluded 'there's no disputing' the transformative value of Llama. Another big consideration for fair use is the new work's impact on a market for the old one. Both judges also agreed that based on the arguments made by the authors, the impact wasn't serious enough to tip the scale. Add those things together, and the conclusions were obvious… but only in the context of these cases, and in Meta's case, because the authors pushed a legal strategy that their judge found totally inept. Put it this way: when a judge says his ruling 'does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful' and 'stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one' — as Chhabria did — AI companies' prospects in future lawsuits with him don't look great. Both rulings dealt specifically with training — or media getting fed into the models — and didn't reach the question of LLM output, or the stuff models produce in response to user prompts. But output is, in fact, extremely pertinent. A huge legal fight between The New York Times and OpenAI began partly with a claim that ChatGPT could verbatim regurgitate large sections of Times stories. Disney recently sued Midjourney on the premise that it 'will generate, publicly display, and distribute videos featuring Disney's and Universal's copyrighted characters' with a newly launched video tool. Even in pending cases that weren't output-focused, plaintiffs can adapt their strategies if they now think it's a better bet. The authors in the Anthropic case didn't allege Claude was producing directly infringing output. The authors in the Meta case argued Llama was, but they failed to convince the judge — who found it wouldn't spit out more than around 50 words of any given work. As Alsup noted, dealing purely with inputs changed the calculations dramatically. 'If the outputs seen by users had been infringing, Authors would have a different case,' wrote Alsup. 'And, if the outputs were ever to become infringing, Authors could bring such a case. But that is not this case.' In their current form, major generative AI products are basically useless without output. And we don't have a good picture of the law around it, especially because fair use is an idiosyncratic, case-by-case defense that can apply differently to mediums like music, visual art, and text. Anthropic being able to scan authors' books tells us very little about whether Midjourney can legally help people produce Minions memes. Minions and New York Times articles are both examples of direct copying in output. But Chhabria's ruling is particularly interesting because it makes the output question much, much broader. Though he may have ruled in favor of Meta, Chhabria's entire opening argues that AI systems are so damaging to artists and writers that their harm outweighs any possible transformative value — basically, because they're spam machines. It's worth reading: Generative AI has the potential to flood the market with endless amounts of images, songs, articles, books, and more. People can prompt generative AI models to produce these outputs using a tiny fraction of the time and creativity that would otherwise be required. So by training generative AI models with copyrighted works, companies are creating something that often will dramatically undermine the market for those works, and thus dramatically undermine the incentive for human beings to create things the old-fashioned way. … As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the fair use inquiry is highly fact dependent, and there are few bright-line rules. There is certainly no rule that when your use of a protected work is 'transformative,' this automatically inoculates you from a claim of copyright infringement. And here, copying the protected works, however transformative, involves the creation of a product with the ability to severely harm the market for the works being copied, and thus severely undermine the incentive for human beings to create. … The upshot is that in many circumstances it will be illegal to copy copyright-protected works to train generative AI models without permission. Which means that the companies, to avoid liability for copyright infringement, will generally need to pay copyright holders for the right to use their materials. And boy, it sure would be interesting if somebody would sue and make that case. After saying that 'in the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited,' Chhabria helpfully noted this ruling affects only 13 authors, not the 'countless others' whose work Meta used. A written court opinion is unfortunately incapable of physically conveying a wink and a nod. Those lawsuits might be far in the future. And Alsup, though he wasn't faced with the kind of argument Chhabria suggested, seemed potentially unsympathetic to it. 'Authors' complaint is no different than it would be if they complained that training schoolchildren to write well would result in an explosion of competing works,' he wrote of the authors who sued Anthropic. 'This is not the kind of competitive or creative displacement that concerns the Copyright Act. The Act seeks to advance original works of authorship, not to protect authors against competition.' He was similarly dismissive of the claim that authors were being deprived of licensing fees for training: 'such a market,' he wrote, 'is not one the Copyright Act entitles Authors to exploit.' But even Alsup's seemingly positive ruling has a poison pill for AI companies. Training on legally acquired material, he ruled, is classic protected fair use. Training on pirated material is a different story, and Alsup absolutely excoriates any attempt to say it's not. 'This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use,' he wrote. There were plenty of ways to scan or copy legally acquired books (including Anthropic's own scanning system), but 'Anthropic did not do those things — instead it stole the works for its central library by downloading them from pirated libraries.' Eventually switching to book scanning doesn't erase the original sin, and in some ways it actually compounds it, because it demonstrates Anthropic could have done things legally from the start. If new AI companies adopt this perspective, they'll have to build in extra but not necessarily ruinous startup costs. There's the up-front price of buying what Anthropic at one point described as 'all the books in the world,' plus any media needed for things like images or video. And in Anthropic's case these were physical works, because hard copies of media dodge the kinds of DRM and licensing agreements publishers can put on digital ones — so add some extra cost for the labor of scanning them in. But just about any big AI player currently operating is either known or suspected to have trained on illegally downloaded books and other media. Anthropic and the authors will be going to trial to hash out the direct piracy accusations, and depending on what happens, a lot of companies could be hypothetically at risk of almost inestimable financial damages — not just from authors, but from anyone that demonstrates their work was illegally acquired. As legal expert Blake Reid vividly puts it, 'if there's evidence that an engineer was torrenting a bunch of stuff with C-suite blessing it turns the company into a money piñata.' And on top of all that, the many unsettled details can make it easy to miss the bigger mystery: how this legal wrangling will affect both the AI industry and the arts. Echoing a common argument among AI proponents, former Meta executive Nick Clegg said recently that getting artists' permission for training data would 'basically kill the AI industry.' That's an extreme claim, and given all the licensing deals companies are already striking (including with Vox Media, the parent company of The Verge), it's looking increasingly dubious. Even if they're faced with piracy penalties thanks to Alsup's ruling, the biggest AI companies have billions of dollars in investment — they can weather a lot. But smaller, particularly open source players might be much more vulnerable, and many of them are also almost certainly trained on pirated works. Meanwhile, if Chhabria's theory is right, artists could reap a reward for providing training data to AI giants. But it's highly unlikely the fees would shut these services down. That would still leave us in a spam-filled landscape with no room for future artists. Can money in the pockets of this generation's artists compensate for the blighting of the next? Is copyright law the right tool to protect the future? And what role should the courts be playing in all this? These two rulings handed partial wins to the AI industry, but they leave many more, much bigger questions unanswered.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
3 Upcoming Catalysts That Could Propel Arista Networks (ANET) Higher
Arista Networks Inc (NYSE:ANET) is one of the . On June 25, Evercore ISI analyst Amit Daryanani reiterated an 'Outperform' rating on the stock with a $110.00 price target. The firm considers Meta's two-layer scheduled fabric architecture for back-end networks to be a significant opportunity for Arista. It is expected that both Meta and Oracle will increase deployment of the Arista-centric two-layer approach in the second half of this year, utilizing Broadcom's Jericho and Ramon chipsets instead of Tomahawk. A software engineer debugging a complex communications infrastructure. According to the firm, Arista accounts for an estimated 30% of spend in the three-layer architecture versus 100% in the two-layer approach. It is further expected that Arista will secure about 30% of back-end cloud networking spend, driving 'outsized growth in CY25 and beyond.' CY25 guidance updates, OCP announcements from Meta, and Meta revenue percentage disclosure anticipated during fourth-quarter earnings are three catalysts identified by the firm for Arista. Arista Networks Inc (NYSE:ANET) develops, markets, and sells cloud networking solutions. While we acknowledge the potential of ANET as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 10 AI Stocks in the Spotlight and . Disclosure: None.
