> Meta argued that the regulator was “sending a chilling message to start-up entrepreneurs: do not build new companies because you will not be able to sell them.”<p>This overlooks the traditional and perhaps now unpopular reason to start a company: making money by selling something useful. No need to sell the company. By the way, Facebook buys, does not sell.
I guess I don't get it. This is based on speculative misuse - that FB may in the future deny access to Giphy to competitors. So if you own a tool that your competitors may use then that's anti-competitive? Seems like that could apply to a lot of companies. Why not wait for actual misuse and base a case on that?<p>Also what's so special about Giphy? Seems it could be duplicated fairly easily by any serious competitor.<p>And competition being defined as other social media platforms? Pretty broad definition.<p>Seems FB hatred is making bad law. And that bad law will bite others not just FB.
Okay, I'm dumb. But can anyone please explain how the UK has any right to stop an American Company(Meta) from acquiring another American Company(Giphy)? If the UK can, can Germany, India, or even China and Russia do something similar?
It's just open season on Meta and big tech in general. Giphy isn't exactly an ad powerhouse nor a real competitor to Meta, but any acquisitions are now opportunities for political theater.
Remedies proposed by Facebook, such as a promise to keep the service open to rivals, were not sufficient to address the competition concerns, the regulator added.<p><a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/30/facebook-ordered-sell-giphy-competition-watchdog/" rel="nofollow">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/30/facebook-ord...</a><p>They would break a promise - surely not?
Imagine a government across the world asking you to sell a portion of your business. I’m not a fan of FB but I’d be laughing with Zuck in the board room at this one.
Okay, I am as concerned about monopolization as the next guy, especially after Facebook bought WhatsApp and Instagram...<p>But Giphy? Really? I mean, it's not exactly a sticky site. It's basically plumbing.
Press release from the Competition and Markets Authority:<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-directs-facebook-to-sell-giphy" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-directs-facebook-to-s...</a><p>Summary of final Report (30th November)<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/facebook-inc-giphy-inc-merger-inquiry#final-report" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/facebook-inc-giphy-inc-merger-i...</a><p>Case documents:<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/facebook-inc-giphy-inc-merger-inquiry" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/facebook-inc-giphy-inc-merger-i...</a>
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.<p>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.<p>But this regulatory ruling isn't even about Facebook's dominant business, it's about the <i>potential</i> harm to the <i>advertising</i> 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).<p>And if you're going to go after a company for dominance in advertising and you go after <i>Facebook</i> and not <i>Google</i>? How does any of this make sense?<p>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.<p>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.<p>All around, this just seems so... dumb.
It seems odd for the CMA to order a sell off when Facebook and Giphy are both US companies.<p>Wouldn’t it make more sense to require Giphy UK to cease trading, and force Facebook UK to compete on its own? UK authorities policing UK companies and all.<p>(Please don’t respond to this as a hot take on globalisation — my comment is a serious question about how the UK competition authority can be most effective, not a wide eyed lamentation on why we can’t have world peace etc.)
Honestly I don’t think this will end well for the regulator.<p>I am not a lawyer, but I am guessing that if Facebook blocks giphy usage in the UK there is very little the UK regulator can do to them. I see that as the likeliest scenario as they won’t want to sell giphy.<p>This will only make the regulator look foolish. The average person won’t understand why Facebook owning giphy is a problem (it’s not a social network) but they will be annoyed when they lose access to giphy in slack, WhatsApp and other platforms that use it in.
I don't know what Giphy's financials looked/look like, but it felt like the type of startup that could only ever run on VC funding to eventually be bought up by a larger player. I'm not convinced there's a self-sustaining business, there.
Bold move for a declining country like the UK to pull a business-hostile move like this. Meta could probably just pull out of the UK entirely without any serious bottom line impact.<p>You'd think the UK would be pulling an Ireland and throwing around tax shelter bargains and generally offering sweetheart deals like there's no tomorrow. Trying to bully businesses they desperately need is...<i>brave</i>.
I don't know anything about these laws and companies so forgive my silly question but... what about Giphy's responsibility? Can be bought against their will? Or do they sell just to cash in? Because if they do it sounds to me like they have no better morals than Meta.
While seeing FB, Twitter, Google,etc. get hit by regulators & governments doesn't really bother me (because these monopolies should be getting attacked, not necessarily for the fact that they're monopolies but because they behave in an anti-competitive, scummy way, to mention only one reason), what i do wonder is how exactly does this pave the way for new emerging platforms that are more secure, less censored and better designed than these ones.Especially when you consider the amount of regulations one has to "obey" when launching a new platform.<p>While it's certainly easy to cite few companies that have better ethics than these major corporations, the attacks of EU&US regulators&politicians feel like it's just both a money-grab and also political talk in order to restore "trust in institutions"(Which is down-trending in EU since 2015 for example) while degrading the influence of these platforms (which again, it's not a bad thing, just an over-looked fact).
Western, mostly UK an EU, regulators are dumb. They wanted to help their citizens with privacy, instead the whole world gets annoying cookie pop ups. Boomer energy is too strong in the Western world.
US Regulators: ok<p>EU Regulators: ok<p>UK Regulators: waaaaait a minute<p>Honestly, I don't mind the UK's rationale here, but I would still tell them to pound sand, or "sod off". Fairly decent sized market but I would consider denying them service and seeing what happens next. Sure, gives room for a competitor to come in but also breaks their internet in the near term.