4 ms·

I couldn’t read the article but am I right in understanding the UK regulators think Facebook shouldn’t buy a funny gif company? Good thing brexit has prevented

I couldn’t read the article but am I right in understanding the UK regulators think Facebook shouldn’t buy a funny gif company? Good thing brexit has prevented the UK from all those crazy euro rules and regulations.

xyzzy123 5y ago
What if Meta obtain a monopoly on the supply of funny gifs. > "At that time the CMA argued Meta could cut off its rivals’ access to gifs, and demand platforms like TikTok or Snapchat hand over more of their data in order to access gifs, consolidating power in Meta’s hands." It... it seems like that may be a fair summary of the regulator's concern :/
- quiffledwerg 5y ago
  Things will become very sad on the other social networks. Zuckerberg is ruthless in his determination to own all the funny gifs and good times. It’s not fair cause nothing will be left for Twitter, making it all just people yelling at each other and no one laughing at funny cats and memes. If this deal is not stopped then Zuckerberg will have bought much of the worlds supply of laughs. He’s shown he’s willing to use those laughs against us. It’s a dystopian future that I’m glad the UK is standing up against. Thank god there’s a democracy that stands against such devastating overreach. We suspect zuckerberg’s grand plan is to lock away all the worlds laughs in a big vault so no one can get them, and finally the world will be under his control. Unless The Incredibles are sent in to Facebook headquarters to break in and steal the worlds sense of humor back.
  - ubercow13 5y ago
    Is your argument basically that businesses that are deemed 'silly' shouldn't be regulated the same way as 'serious' ones? What other aspects of the law do you think shouldn't apply to them, and how do we as a society decide what is too silly to be taken seriously?
    - xyzzy123 5y ago
      I'm not sure but I'm pretty keen to see Matt Levine's take on this. We haven't explored the geopolitical angle yet either. What are the national security implications of choking off TikTok's critical gif supply? The regulator may have had unspoken trade war concerns.
    - quiffledwerg 5y ago
      Yes I think it’s flipping bonkers that a funny picture company can’t be acquired because it’s a competitive threat. It’s too silly for words really. It’d be a Monty Python sketch except it’s real. Or a children’s story in which the wicked witch steals all the worlds smiles and no one can smile again until the spell is broken. Only in the UK. The only thing more ridiculous than Facebook not being allowed to buy the funny picture company, is the fact that Facebook is spending $400,000,000 on a funny picture company. Layer upon layer of crazy.
      - Dave3of5 5y ago
        What facebook (meta) bought was access to a treasure trove of data which they will sell to advertisers to make billions of dollars. It's nothing to do with a "funny picture company" and $400 million was a good price for what they got. The fact you don't understand that is a you problem.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Basically this, but non-sarcastically. It might be wryly amusing when capitalists act like comic book villains, but that's a terrible reason to let them do it. (...isn't the crazed rent-seeking capitalist a comic book villain trope for a reason?)
dessant 5y ago
> funny gif company Giphy is integrated in smartphone keyboards for hundreds of millions of devices, and it is a fast track to a large trove of personal data for Facebook.
streamofdigits 5y ago
whatsapp was/is a "market leader" in community watch groups, literally embedded in the city landscape. with the facebook acquisition suddenly all these local groups became a data mining and selling property, with the participating folks a captive population. greed has overfloweth, lack of any moral compunction is the rule of the game. fine but this usually bites back in ways not immediately obvious. so don't ask why the world is going to hell one crisis at a time.

xyzzy123 5y ago

What if Meta obtain a monopoly on the supply of funny gifs. > "At that time the CMA argued Meta could cut off its rivals’ access to gifs, and demand platforms like TikTok or Snapchat hand over more of their data in order to access gifs, consolidating power in Meta’s hands." It... it seems like that may be a fair summary of the regulator's concern :/

quiffledwerg 5y ago
Things will become very sad on the other social networks. Zuckerberg is ruthless in his determination to own all the funny gifs and good times. It’s not fair cause nothing will be left for Twitter, making it all just people yelling at each other and no one laughing at funny cats and memes. If this deal is not stopped then Zuckerberg will have bought much of the worlds supply of laughs. He’s shown he’s willing to use those laughs against us. It’s a dystopian future that I’m glad the UK is standing up against. Thank god there’s a democracy that stands against such devastating overreach. We suspect zuckerberg’s grand plan is to lock away all the worlds laughs in a big vault so no one can get them, and finally the world will be under his control. Unless The Incredibles are sent in to Facebook headquarters to break in and steal the worlds sense of humor back.
- ubercow13 5y ago
  Is your argument basically that businesses that are deemed 'silly' shouldn't be regulated the same way as 'serious' ones? What other aspects of the law do you think shouldn't apply to them, and how do we as a society decide what is too silly to be taken seriously?
  - xyzzy123 5y ago
    I'm not sure but I'm pretty keen to see Matt Levine's take on this. We haven't explored the geopolitical angle yet either. What are the national security implications of choking off TikTok's critical gif supply? The regulator may have had unspoken trade war concerns.
  - quiffledwerg 5y ago
    Yes I think it’s flipping bonkers that a funny picture company can’t be acquired because it’s a competitive threat. It’s too silly for words really. It’d be a Monty Python sketch except it’s real. Or a children’s story in which the wicked witch steals all the worlds smiles and no one can smile again until the spell is broken. Only in the UK. The only thing more ridiculous than Facebook not being allowed to buy the funny picture company, is the fact that Facebook is spending $400,000,000 on a funny picture company. Layer upon layer of crazy.
    - Dave3of5 5y ago
      What facebook (meta) bought was access to a treasure trove of data which they will sell to advertisers to make billions of dollars. It's nothing to do with a "funny picture company" and $400 million was a good price for what they got. The fact you don't understand that is a you problem.
- dTal 5y ago
  Basically this, but non-sarcastically. It might be wryly amusing when capitalists act like comic book villains, but that's a terrible reason to let them do it. (...isn't the crazed rent-seeking capitalist a comic book villain trope for a reason?)

dessant 5y ago

> funny gif company Giphy is integrated in smartphone keyboards for hundreds of millions of devices, and it is a fast track to a large trove of personal data for Facebook.

streamofdigits 5y ago

whatsapp was/is a "market leader" in community watch groups, literally embedded in the city landscape. with the facebook acquisition suddenly all these local groups became a data mining and selling property, with the participating folks a captive population. greed has overfloweth, lack of any moral compunction is the rule of the game. fine but this usually bites back in ways not immediately obvious. so don't ask why the world is going to hell one crisis at a time.