11 ms·

There's no real limit to the supply of gifs on the internet, and yet Meta spent $600m on a website hosting third party gifs that made almost zero revenue. I don

There's no real limit to the supply of gifs on the internet, and yet Meta spent $600m on a website hosting third party gifs that made almost zero revenue. I don't think they were going to get very far with arguments that nobody cares about gifs... One the other hand, the owner of Giphy absolutely does get to limit which websites get to continue displaying the gifs that several years' of their user-generated content backlinked to Giphy.com Not surprising that some bodies think the party making that decision shouldn't be Meta.

ch4s3 4y ago
> One the other hand, the owner of Giphy absolutely does get to limit which websites get to continue displaying the gifs that several years' of their user-generated content backlinked to Giphy.com I guess my question would be so what? You can cache them on your own system, if you wanted. However, I doubt historical shit posts and reaction gifs have any real value to anyone. Frankly it seems laughable that Facebook paid $660m for Gify in the first place.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > Frankly it seems laughable that Facebook paid $660m for Gify in the first place. It's another vector for collecting user analytics.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I question the value there. Who cares that someone likes Seinfeld clips with George? Is that worth anything at all? You can get basically that data from Experian anyway without all of the hassle.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Maybe someone should have told Meta that when they bought Giphy!
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        I’m pretty sure the general tone here at the time could be summarized as “what they fuck are they thinking.”