6 ms·

So Facebook basically just bought inside usage info on a ton of direct competition, even if they stop their integration in the future. Messaging: Signal, Group

So Facebook basically just bought inside usage info on a ton of direct competition, even if they stop their integration in the future. Messaging: Signal, GroupMe, Telegram, Viber Social Media: Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Tiktok Dating: Bumble, Tinder Video: Skype Does anyone else kind of feel weirded out that this isn't illegal? Not surprising legally or for a move for Facebook, but this just feels incredibly wrong.

throwaway4715 6y ago
Are you saying that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to own any product that can be shared on a competitors platform? Seems kinda ridiculous.
- adjkant 6y ago
  No, I am saying that them retroactively buying it without warning and getting access to the historical data, which users and developers did not intend to give to Facebook, is the off part. If Facebook bought this or developed it themselves and then these companies integrated Giphy, it's obviously very different. Basically this implies that any data you give to any third party can then basically be bought by your competition. I think legal language that prevents this would likely be a net good thing. I of course realize it's fair game, but that seems like a great way to discourage the use of any third parties generally. The acquisition itself is very valid from a product standpoint, but I suspect a big reason for the buy was that data on competitors as Facebook claws back against pressure from rising platforms. I would bet a good deal of money this will be used to inform future acquisitions and fuel the black hole of Facebook acquisitions and squashing of any competitors.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hedora 6y ago
    > I think legal language that prevents this would likely be a net good thing. Language that protects end user data across changes in company ownership basic doesn’t exist. For one thing, if the company goes bankrupt, the data is an asset of values, and the court will allow them to void prior contracts so that they can sell off assets and pay their debts. This is legal for the same reason pensions get zeroed out during bankruptcies and acquisitions. If the new owners can steal retirement money from current and former employees, you can bet they can sell whatever treasure troves of data the company has amassed.
- zarriak 6y ago
  Yes, do you genuinely believe that they have sufficiently changed after the vast amount of data given away to Cambridge Analytica and other firms just two years ago mean they should have access to historical data? I genuinely think you should have to opt in to data sharing when a company covered by CCPA is purchased. I think you can make a very compelling case that this sale covers the sale of data from Giphy to Facebook which many users may not want them to do.
  - throwaway4715 6y ago
    I don't think whether they have changed affects their ability to buy Giphy. Your CCPA point is interesting though. However my guess is the CCPA is unlikely to be used in that way as it would affect nearly every acquisition in every industry.
    - zarriak 6y ago
      Then it should apply in every industry. It is absurd to think that this is not inherent a sale of data and of data collection technologies. I would assume that in Facebook's acquisition these are two different things have been priced in even with other social media companies like twitter removing giphy from within the app, they have years of historical Twitter Gif data. I would find that data much more valuable than something that will probably be removed in short order from many apps now that it is owned by Facebook.
whalesalad 6y ago
Ostebsibly any of those services is large enough to serve as a middleman proxy for giphy so that their users requests do not ever visit the Giphy servers. Whether that is going to be against the terms or not is to be determined.
nokya 6y ago
I do feel weirded out. Reminds me of WhatsApp's acquisition by Facebook back in 2014: I cancelled my account the minute I learned about this. The only hope is that Telegram acts as a proxy between user searches and Giphy's servers and somehow preserves the privacy of its users.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Signal does this already. Even uses exuberant range requests to simulate padding. Not sure if Signal open sourced this proxy.
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
This is very American if you ask me, America is all about big corps eating the small businesses.
kgin 6y ago
What could you realistically make illegal? Api/services can't be purchased by any of the companies that use them?
- adjkant 6y ago
  IMO this could simply be some sort of FTC/government formed firewall where a purchased company cannot share historical use data related to competitors unless the users of the service (the competitors, companies listed above) sign off on it. I'm fully aware that the implementation of that is legally complex to say the least, this is a bit more of a wish list than a practicality.

throwaway4715 6y ago

Are you saying that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to own any product that can be shared on a competitors platform? Seems kinda ridiculous.

adjkant 6y ago
No, I am saying that them retroactively buying it without warning and getting access to the historical data, which users and developers did not intend to give to Facebook, is the off part. If Facebook bought this or developed it themselves and then these companies integrated Giphy, it's obviously very different. Basically this implies that any data you give to any third party can then basically be bought by your competition. I think legal language that prevents this would likely be a net good thing. I of course realize it's fair game, but that seems like a great way to discourage the use of any third parties generally. The acquisition itself is very valid from a product standpoint, but I suspect a big reason for the buy was that data on competitors as Facebook claws back against pressure from rising platforms. I would bet a good deal of money this will be used to inform future acquisitions and fuel the black hole of Facebook acquisitions and squashing of any competitors.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hedora 6y ago
  > I think legal language that prevents this would likely be a net good thing. Language that protects end user data across changes in company ownership basic doesn’t exist. For one thing, if the company goes bankrupt, the data is an asset of values, and the court will allow them to void prior contracts so that they can sell off assets and pay their debts. This is legal for the same reason pensions get zeroed out during bankruptcies and acquisitions. If the new owners can steal retirement money from current and former employees, you can bet they can sell whatever treasure troves of data the company has amassed.
zarriak 6y ago
Yes, do you genuinely believe that they have sufficiently changed after the vast amount of data given away to Cambridge Analytica and other firms just two years ago mean they should have access to historical data? I genuinely think you should have to opt in to data sharing when a company covered by CCPA is purchased. I think you can make a very compelling case that this sale covers the sale of data from Giphy to Facebook which many users may not want them to do.
- throwaway4715 6y ago
  I don't think whether they have changed affects their ability to buy Giphy. Your CCPA point is interesting though. However my guess is the CCPA is unlikely to be used in that way as it would affect nearly every acquisition in every industry.
  - zarriak 6y ago
    Then it should apply in every industry. It is absurd to think that this is not inherent a sale of data and of data collection technologies. I would assume that in Facebook's acquisition these are two different things have been priced in even with other social media companies like twitter removing giphy from within the app, they have years of historical Twitter Gif data. I would find that data much more valuable than something that will probably be removed in short order from many apps now that it is owned by Facebook.

whalesalad 6y ago

Ostebsibly any of those services is large enough to serve as a middleman proxy for giphy so that their users requests do not ever visit the Giphy servers. Whether that is going to be against the terms or not is to be determined.

nokya 6y ago

I do feel weirded out. Reminds me of WhatsApp's acquisition by Facebook back in 2014: I cancelled my account the minute I learned about this. The only hope is that Telegram acts as a proxy between user searches and Giphy's servers and somehow preserves the privacy of its users.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Signal does this already. Even uses exuberant range requests to simulate padding. Not sure if Signal open sourced this proxy.

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

This is very American if you ask me, America is all about big corps eating the small businesses.

kgin 6y ago

What could you realistically make illegal? Api/services can't be purchased by any of the companies that use them?

adjkant 6y ago
IMO this could simply be some sort of FTC/government formed firewall where a purchased company cannot share historical use data related to competitors unless the users of the service (the competitors, companies listed above) sign off on it. I'm fully aware that the implementation of that is legally complex to say the least, this is a bit more of a wish list than a practicality.