So, the EU took fuckbook at face value, and belatedly realised they had been had?
Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
31–40 of 76 posts
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
My belief in why they wanted to purchase WhatsApp was it presented a threat to fakebook [sic]. This is why they also purchased Instagram, and attempted the same for Snapchat. If true, then WhatsApp wasn't valued at $19 billion, but rather fakebook [sic] saw that removing the perceived threat was worth the price. What astounds me the most, is the FTC doesn't seem to investigate tech acquisitions like other industries.…
Maybe it's because of the low cost of entry for competitors? If people get upset with what Facebook does to WhatsApp, many other services will spring up and people will migrate to them. When it comes to thing like Internet service, it's not really the same situation.
An article on DW was pushing https://wire.com/?hl=en as a alternative to Whatsapp but the critical mass is just not there.
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote basically says that this task is complicated because it requires an equivalent of a SQL one-liner that any CS undergrad should be able to write. Where would Facebook/WhatsApp find experts that good?
Facebook uids based on email address, WhatsApp on phone number. Please show me the SQL one-liner to join those tables...
Select *
from fb_users
join wp_users
on wp_users.id = fb_users.phone_number
A really basic query that will give you all the fb users who have listed their phone number.
Also i just realized while typing this, i think fb started allowing logging in using your phone number around the time they bought whatsapp. So even the profiles that didn't give their phone number to fb, they could get it via this logging system. ( I guess i was a victim of that)
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#34So, the EU took fuckbook at face value, and belatedly realised they had been had?
We've banned this troll account.
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#35> it being fined up to one percent of its annual turnover
Now they're fines we should be proud of. Not like the pathetic smack-on-the-wrist fines they've dished out to banks and Google that they can earn back in milliseconds.
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, the EU knew it could happen; they were told it wouldn't happen. We need to operate on some basic level of common trust. If you wanna do business in the EU, you need to play by the rules. As it turns out, not only did it happen, the software/tech to make it happen was already ready ! That makes a pretty strong case against Facebook's intentions. I actually would agree that it was in hindsight stupid because of Fac…
> ... when the Mark Zuckerberg-run company claimed that it wouldn't be able to knit together user IDs, thereby combining the data of the two services. > ... in which it is alleged that the free content ad network failed to disclose that "the technical possibility of automatically matching Facebook users' IDs with WhatsApp users' IDs already existed" at the time of the merger. Seems like the issue is specifically abou…
> Seems like the issue is specifically about them saying they couldn't do it, rather than wouldn't do it.
Yes, I was wrong, I thought the EU was told by Facebook that Facebook would not do it, while they knew it could be done.
We are arguing semantics though. If someone asks you wether you would commit a crime (e.g. murder someone), and you reply "I can't", and then said someone lets you pass, that does not give you a blank cheque to commit said crime. "Wouldn't" makes no difference here. If anything, "couldn't" sounds more authoritative because even if you'd want to, you argue you can't whereas the other one is solely based on trust. Regardless, arguing over that attempts to draw attention away that it did happen.
Second, we must not forget the EU is not asking a random stranger about it (or well, they were, see below); they were asking those with the know-how themselves, Facebook and WhatsApp.
> Though I would assume that a 30 min consultation with any competent technical person would give rise to a dozen different ways in which it COULD be done...
Competitors and customers of Facebook and WhatsApp were broadly inquired by the EU before the acquisition was finalised [1].
"[...]
The questionnaire inquires about what a merged entity could do with customers' data, and how that could affect advertising services, in particular the effectiveness of ads over both mobile devices such as smartphones and on computers.
"In your view, what would be the likely impact on WhatsApp and its user base if post-transaction WhatsApp… were to start collecting increased amount of data about its users (e.g. user location, age, gender, message content, etc.)?" the questionnaire asks.
It also probes the growing overlap between social networks and messaging services, as companies scramble to make the most advantageous possible use of consumers' data.
"Which of the following websites/apps in your view can be described as a provider of social networking services? Please tick as many boxes as you consider appropriate," the commission asks, before listing dozens of services including Flickr, Foursquare, Google+, InterNations, LinkedIn, Myspace, Meetup, Tumblr, Twitter, Skyrock, Pinterest, Ask.FM and Spotbros.
[...]"
If your argument is that the acquisition should've never happened there have been multiple points of failure, but its too easy to point it all at the EU (if not merely for the fact that they weren't the ones who broke the law in this instance). I don't know if the details of these inquiries are public, I suspect not.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-sends-questionnaire-to-rivals...
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
My belief in why they wanted to purchase WhatsApp was it presented a threat to fakebook [sic]. This is why they also purchased Instagram, and attempted the same for Snapchat. If true, then WhatsApp wasn't valued at $19 billion, but rather fakebook [sic] saw that removing the perceived threat was worth the price. What astounds me the most, is the FTC doesn't seem to investigate tech acquisitions like other industries.…
Maybe it's because of the low cost of entry for competitors? If people get upset with what Facebook does to WhatsApp, many other services will spring up and people will migrate to them. When it comes to thing like Internet service, it's not really the same situation.
In tech the lifecycle seems to be something like
Stage 1 - That doesn't make sense and will never work Stage 2 - They turned down $1b they must be stupid Stage 3 - It is a monopoly and needs to be stopped
Stages may vary but what remains the same is that nothing in tech is certain. Companies try really hard to create monopolies that will probably have anti-trust issues because the alternative is if they don't they will probably die (more so true after raising a lot of money and signing expensive long term office leases.)
From a longer historical perspective, nothing at all is certain. Take a look at the various office skyscrapers and stadiums in the US, the names change. Some of the giant corporations of 50 years ago may still be around in some form, but they are shadows of their former selves. The world changes fast.
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#38I don't see why this is different than any other acquisition involving combining two userbases. Unless it's about the scale.
Because they lied, they said they would never associate the whatsapp data with the facebook one (and funnily enough HN believed them).
Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#39Re: Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook uids based on email address, WhatsApp on phone number. Please show me the SQL one-liner to join those tables...
Select * from fb_users join wp_users on wp_users.id = fb_users.phone_number A really basic query that will give you all the fb users who have listed their phone number. Also i just realized while typing this, i think fb started allowing logging in using your phone number around the time they bought whatsapp. So even the profiles that didn't give their phone number to fb, they could get it via this logging system. ( I…
Exactly what I had in mind.
You could also complement it with phone numbers of people with 2FA enabled.