7 ms·

I think it's clear given Meta's share price on a whiff of decreaing DAUs that Meta needs the EU more than the EU needs Meta's attention sinks.

buggythebug 5y ago
it's still facebook - stop calling it meta
- nicce 5y ago
  Quite opposite - call it Meta that their name change does not help their brand.
  - kangalioo 5y ago
    Switch back end forth between Meta and Facebook to enforce the connection
- tentacleuno 5y ago
  Genuine question: does Facebook own Meta, or does Meta own Facebook? Or is it Meta Platforms[0]? Will Facebook (the product) as everyone knows it continue to be marketed as Facebook (under the leadership of Meta), or is facebook.com going to be re-branded as Meta? I looked the other day and it still comes up as Facebook... and Meta. What the hell? Addendum: why does meta.com redirect to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms [1]: https://about.facebook.com/meta https://about.facebook.com/meta
  - davedx 5y ago
    Meta is like Alphabet. Facebook, Insta, WhatsApp are products under Meta. Facebook the product will stay the same. Where it gets a bit hazy is what the new "Metaverse" product will be exactly, something something VR something AR.
  - martin_a 5y ago
    I think it's the same as with Google. Of course there's some "hull" called "Alphabet" who legally owns Google, but what more than a hull is it? Don't know whether it's for tax reasons, spreading the risk, trying to decouple the image in case of failed products, everybody knows that Alphabet == Google. Same goes for Facebook and Meta: There might be a Meta hull but that hull is quite packed with Facebook, so it does not really matter what the hull is called (or does).
    - tentacleuno 5y ago
      Yeah, Alphabet certainly came to mind when I first heard the news about Meta. I'm guessing it's for tax reasons too since they're also (well, Facebook) located in Ireland. There seemed to be a big push to move companies to Ireland a few years back.
    - pooper 5y ago
      I can't exactly explain why but in my mind, Alphabet and Google make sense. My thought process is that Google makes money that it then uses for other things which are not Google. I don't understand Facebook's name change. It is still Facebook. It wants to stay as a cohesive unit and share data across products. It isn't like Facebook will ever voluntarily give up whatsapp or instagram. I can't quite explain it but I am willing to disassociate the stock ticker Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) from Google but not Facebook (NASDAQ:FB)
  - dspillett 5y ago
    Meta is a holding company, much like Alphabet for Google, and is intended to limit cross-concern damage. By keeping services as separate entities under the holding company they are shielded from each other to an extent with regard to tax, other financial, regulatory, criminal, and other responsibilities, so a massive problem/scandal in one service can have its blast radius more easily managed. These arrangements also make it easier to close things down if needed: it simplifies redundancy (“why can't you offer me a replacement role over there?”, “that is a separate company”) and so forth, though this is more a concern of smaller organisations than Meta & Alphabet. A company I've worked for once had a significant rearrangement with people signing contracts for specific parts where they had previously been employed by the larger group entity, shortly before “divesting” some of those parts. Shady, but legal.
trey-jones 5y ago
Exactly. I'm of the persuasion that nearly everyone is fine without Facebook.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > I'm of the persuasion that nearly everyone is fine without Facebook. I can mostly agree, but there will be large and interesting practical effects. For example, everyone I know in Prague uses Messenger on a daily basis. I think this is true in many places. I also wonder about where small businesses, who have come to rely on FB for one thing or another, will migrate. If this story applies to Messenger, this would lead to the biggest DAU migration in history![1] Kind of interesting. [1] In the areas affected.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  What? Someone on hacker news doesn't like Facebook?
agilob 5y ago
These talks are about Facebook, but it's really about the company meta, does it also mean that Instagram and WA will go away?
cookingmyserver 5y ago
I don't know if I would agree. The fact that growth is stopping is more damaging to share price than the actual material impact of the growth stoppage, until the price corrects. I think there is a good chance Meta is not bluffing. It could be viewed as a way to slow or quarantine the spread of data regulations. Pull out of Europe and let Europe develop its own competitor that will have control over Europe, but won't be able to compete abroad. Satiating European want for data regulation and privacy laws in Europe would, hopefully in Meta's view, dampen the broader push for these regulations (a push being led by Europe). Essentially let Europe isolate themselves. This will probably be followed by Meta and other corporations pushing propaganda and marketing highlighting any mistake or failure of European replacements. Pulling out of Europe would hurt, but at the end of the day Europe's population is small and already developed. In 10 years are there going to be a lot more Europeans spending a lot more, requiring more advertising? Doubtful. But this could also backfire if other countries look at new European competitors with jealousy and want to emulate it.

buggythebug 5y ago

it's still facebook - stop calling it meta

nicce 5y ago
Quite opposite - call it Meta that their name change does not help their brand.
- kangalioo 5y ago
  Switch back end forth between Meta and Facebook to enforce the connection
tentacleuno 5y ago
Genuine question: does Facebook own Meta, or does Meta own Facebook? Or is it Meta Platforms[0]? Will Facebook (the product) as everyone knows it continue to be marketed as Facebook (under the leadership of Meta), or is facebook.com going to be re-branded as Meta? I looked the other day and it still comes up as Facebook... and Meta. What the hell? Addendum: why does meta.com redirect to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms [1]: https://about.facebook.com/meta https://about.facebook.com/meta
- davedx 5y ago
  Meta is like Alphabet. Facebook, Insta, WhatsApp are products under Meta. Facebook the product will stay the same. Where it gets a bit hazy is what the new "Metaverse" product will be exactly, something something VR something AR.
- martin_a 5y ago
  I think it's the same as with Google. Of course there's some "hull" called "Alphabet" who legally owns Google, but what more than a hull is it? Don't know whether it's for tax reasons, spreading the risk, trying to decouple the image in case of failed products, everybody knows that Alphabet == Google. Same goes for Facebook and Meta: There might be a Meta hull but that hull is quite packed with Facebook, so it does not really matter what the hull is called (or does).
  - tentacleuno 5y ago
    Yeah, Alphabet certainly came to mind when I first heard the news about Meta. I'm guessing it's for tax reasons too since they're also (well, Facebook) located in Ireland. There seemed to be a big push to move companies to Ireland a few years back.
  - pooper 5y ago
    I can't exactly explain why but in my mind, Alphabet and Google make sense. My thought process is that Google makes money that it then uses for other things which are not Google. I don't understand Facebook's name change. It is still Facebook. It wants to stay as a cohesive unit and share data across products. It isn't like Facebook will ever voluntarily give up whatsapp or instagram. I can't quite explain it but I am willing to disassociate the stock ticker Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) from Google but not Facebook (NASDAQ:FB)
- dspillett 5y ago
  Meta is a holding company, much like Alphabet for Google, and is intended to limit cross-concern damage. By keeping services as separate entities under the holding company they are shielded from each other to an extent with regard to tax, other financial, regulatory, criminal, and other responsibilities, so a massive problem/scandal in one service can have its blast radius more easily managed. These arrangements also make it easier to close things down if needed: it simplifies redundancy (“why can't you offer me a replacement role over there?”, “that is a separate company”) and so forth, though this is more a concern of smaller organisations than Meta & Alphabet. A company I've worked for once had a significant rearrangement with people signing contracts for specific parts where they had previously been employed by the larger group entity, shortly before “divesting” some of those parts. Shady, but legal.

trey-jones 5y ago

Exactly. I'm of the persuasion that nearly everyone is fine without Facebook.

consumer451 5y ago
> I'm of the persuasion that nearly everyone is fine without Facebook. I can mostly agree, but there will be large and interesting practical effects. For example, everyone I know in Prague uses Messenger on a daily basis. I think this is true in many places. I also wonder about where small businesses, who have come to rely on FB for one thing or another, will migrate. If this story applies to Messenger, this would lead to the biggest DAU migration in history![1] Kind of interesting. [1] In the areas affected.
missedthecue 5y ago
What? Someone on hacker news doesn't like Facebook?

agilob 5y ago

These talks are about Facebook, but it's really about the company meta, does it also mean that Instagram and WA will go away?

cookingmyserver 5y ago

I don't know if I would agree. The fact that growth is stopping is more damaging to share price than the actual material impact of the growth stoppage, until the price corrects. I think there is a good chance Meta is not bluffing. It could be viewed as a way to slow or quarantine the spread of data regulations. Pull out of Europe and let Europe develop its own competitor that will have control over Europe, but won't be able to compete abroad. Satiating European want for data regulation and privacy laws in Europe would, hopefully in Meta's view, dampen the broader push for these regulations (a push being led by Europe). Essentially let Europe isolate themselves. This will probably be followed by Meta and other corporations pushing propaganda and marketing highlighting any mistake or failure of European replacements. Pulling out of Europe would hurt, but at the end of the day Europe's population is small and already developed. In 10 years are there going to be a lot more Europeans spending a lot more, requiring more advertising? Doubtful. But this could also backfire if other countries look at new European competitors with jealousy and want to emulate it.