4 ms·

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 tha

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.

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.