[ProAm]

I agree with that but a independent messaging app seems perfectly safe for FB to purchase. Instagram a little different but I never saw the government being concerned or potentially not allow this one to go through. That is why I was curious about the OPs perspective because maybe they did see something (not counting hindsight and that FB is a terrible company, but only in the moment)

[pegasus]

It's simple: OP's perspective is that even though the purchase was not stopped, it should have been. That to you it seemed a perfectly safe purchase is completely irellevant to his argument.

[ProAm]

I would like to know why he thinks it should have been stopped. At the time of that purchase I think any messaging platform could have been sold to anyone and not been stopped (imo).

[pegasus]

Again, it's simple: he says it should have been stopped, not that it could have been stopped. Or you could read it as "in a better system, this purchase would have been seen as anticompetitive and stopped". I happen to agree with the sentiment.

[ProAm]

> he says it should have been stopped,

Again, I ask why. It wasn't anti-competitve because the service still exists as a standalone service just with a different owner. I see what you are saying it just does not make any sense in terms of antitrust or anti-competitiveness

[nicoburns]

It's not really standalone. The privacy implications are case in point. Facebook is a vehemently anti-privacy company, and it's not going to allow WhatsApp to undermine on this point. If WhatsApp (or indeed Instagram) were truly independent then we may well see competition on this front.