Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

axios.com

431–440 of 535 posts

Re: Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

#431

The Giphy integration that Facebook put into WhatsApp lets Giphy track who sends what GIFs to whom, so while the message is transmitted encrypted, a lot of context can be gleaned. This acquisition makes a lot of sense.

Also Snapchat uses Giphy for gif search, so this acquisition could be to prevent snap from using it moving forward

I hope Facebook would get slapped with an anti-competitive behavior suit if they tried to pull that one.

Re: Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

#432
post #94
post #58

Every time Facebook is buying something I feel sad and imagine Facebook like the black plague that will swallow that normal organism.

This exactly. Kara Swisher's interview with Sarah Frier on how Instagram went really paints the picture. https://overcast.fm/+QLdurp-A8

That interview was bad. They're trying to make you feel bad for the Instagram founders because they were too stupid to realize that after you _sell_ your company you don't own it anymore. Also, per that interview, Instagram only became sustainable under Facebook.

Hard to feel bad about it.

Re: Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t there a gif of the entire first Shrek movie?

Perhaps, but that's clearly not covered by fair use. Posting the entire Shrek movie as a GIF is not creating a "new meme".

a heavily accelerated 49px by 49px gif seems okay

Re: Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

#438
post #99

Congrats to Giphy, but honestly it baffles me they are worth this much money. Do they actually bring in decent revenue, or was this all about eyeballs? Is this content even decently monetizable? Disclaimer: I am the jaded creator of Twicsy, a Twitter picture engine with many millions of visitors over its lifetime, and I apparently missed the boat on this trends and had to shut it down.

Read the privacy policy[1]. Think of Giphy images as a giant, organically shared version of web tracking software. Which complements the coverage of the FB Pixel[2] well, as it worms its way into privacy-conscious areas they might not have FB Pixel coverage such as private communications and security/privacy-minded apps. And without implementing something like a proxy server to pre-cache/sanitize images and strip tra…

Woah, that's a great point. Imagine sharing a gif in Signal and still being tracked by Facebook because every person that loads it needs to first download it from FB servers.

It really is getting to the point that if you want privacy, don't touch anything owned by the top 5 tech companies. Better yet, only use Open Source. I never used to be a OSS only person, but the past few months I've started to go that way.

Re: Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

#439
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a great match. They're both hype-mongering companies which add no value whatsoever to society.

Am I out of touch? No, it's the 1.6B daily active users who are wrong.

A thing can have good aspects while being a net negative.

Re: Facebook to Buy Giphy for $400M

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can also be ambiguous. Some people think "high five" emojis are actually "prayer hands". Which convey wildly different reactions to something. Told your friend your Dad was diagnosed with cancer? high five

It's definitely a "praying" emoji, the whole high five thing is an urban myth. The official spec[1] calls it "PERSON WITH FOLDED HANDS".. the keyword there is "person" (in contrast to, for example, "1FAC2;PEOPLE HUGGING" when there is multiple people). The emoji is of a single person folding their hands, which really isn't a high five unless you're somehow high five-ing yourself. [1]ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/UNIDA…

I've definitely confused the prayer emoji and thought it was a clapping emoji before. When someone else uses it, I just see the image, not the keyword associated with it.
Post reply on HN