4 ms·

I can't help but think of Aesop's fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs. That goose is the tech industry and what may kill it is pointless, kneejerk p

by cletus 5y ago

I can't help but think of Aesop's fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs. That goose is the tech industry and what may kill it is pointless, kneejerk political or regulatory action. In the social media space, if Facebook has such a monopoly, why have there been a number of competitors that have come along and represented an existential threat in the same way Facebook did to Myspace? Examples: Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat and Tiktok. But this regulatory ruling isn't even about Facebook's dominant business, it's about the potential harm to the advertising business from a $30m easyily-reproducible company. Sure, Giphy had a lot of installs but it's not even the only such company in this space (eg Tenor? IIRC). And if you're going to go after a company for dominance in advertising and you go after Facebook and not Google? How does any of this make sense? These companies are also facing competition from competitors who aren't and won't be shackled by the threat of government intervention. Instead, those companies are extensions of the state. I am of course talking about China and the likes of Tencent, Alibaba, Tiktok and so on. So I'm confused by this move because it seems ultimately pointless. Anyone claiming it's "sending a message" miss the point that this cuts both ways. It can embolden those who oppose regulation as government overreach and this may hurt actual anticompetitive practices rather than potential anticompetitive practices. All around, this just seems so... dumb.

Teandw 5y ago
1) "But this regulatory ruling isn't even about Facebook's dominant business, it's about the potential harm to the advertising business" Yes, using it's dominance to control a market and decide where people get to advertise, rather than people having a choice. 2) If you think Giphy is easily-reproducible, it shows how little you know about things in general. 3) "And if you're going to go after a company for dominance in advertising and you go after Facebook and not Google?" 1 minute of research would show you that the CMA already are and have been at Google's doors too. More recently about Google's power when it comes to third-party cookies; which is for advertising. The CMA are pretty much always going at the big companies for something. It seems like you need to understand what you're talking about, before you try and talk about it.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  >If you think Giphy is easily-reproducible, it shows how little you know about things in general Is Giphy fundamentally different in some way than Imgur, Photobucket, Tenor, Gfycat, or Animoto? Seems like there's a pretty healthy amount of competition in the space unless I just don't understand what makes Giphy special.
  - Teandw 5y ago
    Imgur, Photobucket and Animoto aren't comparable to Giphy. They're targeting different things. That would be like comparing Youtube to LinkedIn. Both social websites but ultimately have different goals/aims. What makes Giphy special is the content/user moat that it has. Anyone can easily create a Giphy website and search engine. You can most probably buy a Wordpress theme for $20 to do it. You can not easily-replicate what Giphy has achieved in regards to content moat and user numbers. I wouldn't call 2 other businesses in the same industry, healthy competition.
MAGZine 5y ago
You seem to have a lot of very strong opinions stemming from a blocked acquisition of an "easily reproducible company that doesn't really matter." The idea that regulators shouldn't regulate because someone (the regulated?) might be upset is laughable. We don't acquit murderers because their community would miss them. The only people who will oppose this are "captial-at-all-costs," folks who are happy with the continued consolidation of power/resources.
- cletus 5y ago
  The only reason Giphy isn't reproduced is because there's no need. If FB shut off Giphy tomorrow, do you honestly think it'd take more than a few days for some other GIF extension to take over? Really? If nothing else, Tenor and other existing companies would immediately fill the void. > The idea that regulators shouldn't regulate because someone (the regulated?) might be upset is laughable. So let me address this straw man by stating what I'm actually saying: 1. The time to block an acquisition is prior to the acquisition; 2. If you placed conditions on that acquisition (which regulators often do), you should need an actual violation of those conditions rather than a theoretical violation; 3. Regulators should focus on actual problems. In the US, the Sherman Act was a result of the Standard Oil monopoly. Standard Oil controlled production, refining and distribution of petroleum products (primarily kerosene). It's just not the same with many of the so-called big tech problems today. FB's most troublesome acquisition is WhatsApp and even in that case it was a company started by someone who famously got rejected by a job with Facebook in the late 2000s (ie Brian Acton). If you can establish a real threat to a company after that company has a huge lead, it's pretty good evidence that that company doesn't have the wall around their "monopoly" you think they do. There's a lot of political grandstanding around this now. My point is that companies shouldn't be regulated. It's that rolling back Giphy is just such a pointless exercise of that regulatory power.
Nextgrid 5y ago
> That goose is the tech industry and what may kill it is pointless, kneejerk political or regulatory action. The only "geese" that will be hurt by this are those that feed on "engagement", illicit data collection and human misery in general. I'd say those geese can go and burn in hell. The legitimate tech industry that make real, sustainable products/services in exchange for money will not be affected by this at all. Only those whose "business model" (if you can call it that) is to get tons of VC cash and either end up as a monopoly or get bought out by a bigger fish is going to be affected, and again I'd argue that's a net win.

by cletus 5y ago

Teandw 5y ago

1) "But this regulatory ruling isn't even about Facebook's dominant business, it's about the potential harm to the advertising business" Yes, using it's dominance to control a market and decide where people get to advertise, rather than people having a choice. 2) If you think Giphy is easily-reproducible, it shows how little you know about things in general. 3) "And if you're going to go after a company for dominance in advertising and you go after Facebook and not Google?" 1 minute of research would show you that the CMA already are and have been at Google's doors too. More recently about Google's power when it comes to third-party cookies; which is for advertising. The CMA are pretty much always going at the big companies for something. It seems like you need to understand what you're talking about, before you try and talk about it.

jimbob45 5y ago
>If you think Giphy is easily-reproducible, it shows how little you know about things in general Is Giphy fundamentally different in some way than Imgur, Photobucket, Tenor, Gfycat, or Animoto? Seems like there's a pretty healthy amount of competition in the space unless I just don't understand what makes Giphy special.
- Teandw 5y ago
  Imgur, Photobucket and Animoto aren't comparable to Giphy. They're targeting different things. That would be like comparing Youtube to LinkedIn. Both social websites but ultimately have different goals/aims. What makes Giphy special is the content/user moat that it has. Anyone can easily create a Giphy website and search engine. You can most probably buy a Wordpress theme for $20 to do it. You can not easily-replicate what Giphy has achieved in regards to content moat and user numbers. I wouldn't call 2 other businesses in the same industry, healthy competition.

MAGZine 5y ago

You seem to have a lot of very strong opinions stemming from a blocked acquisition of an "easily reproducible company that doesn't really matter." The idea that regulators shouldn't regulate because someone (the regulated?) might be upset is laughable. We don't acquit murderers because their community would miss them. The only people who will oppose this are "captial-at-all-costs," folks who are happy with the continued consolidation of power/resources.

cletus 5y ago
The only reason Giphy isn't reproduced is because there's no need. If FB shut off Giphy tomorrow, do you honestly think it'd take more than a few days for some other GIF extension to take over? Really? If nothing else, Tenor and other existing companies would immediately fill the void. > The idea that regulators shouldn't regulate because someone (the regulated?) might be upset is laughable. So let me address this straw man by stating what I'm actually saying: 1. The time to block an acquisition is prior to the acquisition; 2. If you placed conditions on that acquisition (which regulators often do), you should need an actual violation of those conditions rather than a theoretical violation; 3. Regulators should focus on actual problems. In the US, the Sherman Act was a result of the Standard Oil monopoly. Standard Oil controlled production, refining and distribution of petroleum products (primarily kerosene). It's just not the same with many of the so-called big tech problems today. FB's most troublesome acquisition is WhatsApp and even in that case it was a company started by someone who famously got rejected by a job with Facebook in the late 2000s (ie Brian Acton). If you can establish a real threat to a company after that company has a huge lead, it's pretty good evidence that that company doesn't have the wall around their "monopoly" you think they do. There's a lot of political grandstanding around this now. My point is that companies shouldn't be regulated. It's that rolling back Giphy is just such a pointless exercise of that regulatory power.

Nextgrid 5y ago

> That goose is the tech industry and what may kill it is pointless, kneejerk political or regulatory action. The only "geese" that will be hurt by this are those that feed on "engagement", illicit data collection and human misery in general. I'd say those geese can go and burn in hell. The legitimate tech industry that make real, sustainable products/services in exchange for money will not be affected by this at all. Only those whose "business model" (if you can call it that) is to get tons of VC cash and either end up as a monopoly or get bought out by a bigger fish is going to be affected, and again I'd argue that's a net win.