8 ms·

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

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?)

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?)