[ubercow13]

Is your argument basically that businesses that are deemed 'silly' shouldn't be regulated the same way as 'serious' ones? What other aspects of the law do you think shouldn't apply to them, and how do we as a society decide what is too silly to be taken seriously?

[quiffledwerg]

Yes I think it’s flipping bonkers that a funny picture company can’t be acquired because it’s a competitive threat.

It’s too silly for words really.

It’d be a Monty Python sketch except it’s real.

Or a children’s story in which the wicked witch steals all the worlds smiles and no one can smile again until the spell is broken.

Only in the UK.

The only thing more ridiculous than Facebook not being allowed to buy the funny picture company, is the fact that Facebook is spending $400,000,000 on a funny picture company.

Layer upon layer of crazy.

[Dave3of5]

What facebook (meta) bought was access to a treasure trove of data which they will sell to advertisers to make billions of dollars.

It's nothing to do with a "funny picture company" and $400 million was a good price for what they got.

The fact you don't understand that is a you problem.

[xyzzy123]

I'm not sure but I'm pretty keen to see Matt Levine's take on this.

We haven't explored the geopolitical angle yet either. What are the national security implications of choking off TikTok's critical gif supply? The regulator may have had unspoken trade war concerns.