←back to thread

Meta antitrust trial kicks off in federal court

(www.axios.com)
431 points c420 | 3 comments | 14 Apr 25 13:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.68s | source
Show context
iambateman ◴[14 Apr 25 19:45 UTC] No.43685448[source]▶
> Meta could have chosen to compete with then-upstart photo sharing app Instagram in 2012, a senior FTC official said on a call with reporters ahead of the trial, but instead it bought it, and did the same with WhatsApp.

This has a potentially very-chilling effect on acquisitions, which are a major source of liquidity for lots of secondary companies.

replies(8): >>43685511 #>>43685547 #>>43685630 #>>43685712 #>>43685720 #>>43686148 #>>43686189 #>>43686280 #
jchw ◴[14 Apr 25 20:05 UTC] No.43685720[source]▶
I'd kill for a chilling effect on acquisitions. Every single fucking time something I like gets acquired, it takes anywhere between a few months to a couple years before it is completely ruined. Maybe if we're lucky, Microsoft will acquire Discord and run it into the ground the way they did with Skype. (Then, we can all go back to IRC, right? ... Right, guys?)
replies(8): >>43685752 #>>43685812 #>>43685845 #>>43685881 #>>43685947 #>>43686576 #>>43687967 #>>43688496 #
guestbest ◴[14 Apr 25 20:27 UTC] No.43685947[source]▶
I don’t think we can go back to some things like ircd or mud talkers because they are too “chatty” to users. People like simplified centralized services with on screen discovery in the form of popups. The small internet will have to stay small
replies(2): >>43685999 #>>43686423 #
jchw ◴[14 Apr 25 20:33 UTC] No.43685999[source]▶
That'd be more than fine with me, except the small internet competes for attention with the rest of the internet and gets slaughtered by their attention-sucking applications with shiny animations, spammy push notifications, gamification and manipulative FOMO-inducing tricks. This means that the "small internet" for any given niche is very, very small, even compared to what it would've been a long time ago on a vastly smaller internet.

User retention aside... Nobody can even find the small internet. It's out there and there are search engines, but even if Google magically wasn't utterly ruined by SEO SPAM, people just don't Google their special interests as much directly anymore. (I can tell from search analytics!) So aside from a struggle to keep users engaged in small communities, there's also not very many users entering smaller communities either, certainly not enough to counteract the bleed.

replies(1): >>43686823 #
1. jjulius ◴[14 Apr 25 22:07 UTC] No.43686823[source]▶
>This means that the "small internet" for any given niche is very, very small, even compared to what it would've been a long time ago on a vastly smaller internet.

This has been my lived experience with a few places the past couple of years, and I love it. It's a completely different experience from the "pop web" that most people use and it's amazing.

>Nobody can even find the small internet. It's out there and there are search engines, but even if Google magically wasn't utterly ruined by SEO SPAM, people just don't Google their special interests as much directly anymore.

I know that my example can't speak for most/many other places, but the regional hiking forums I frequent (same places I alluded to above) come up a lot on search engines. Whether you're looking for "[region] hiking", or looking up "[name of] trail", or anything related to it, the pages pop up towards the top quite frequently. It's how I found them, and there does seem to be a steady number of new users joining.

replies(1): >>43686857 #
2. jchw ◴[14 Apr 25 22:12 UTC] No.43686857[source]▶
Maybe it actually can be alright for a niche as relatively large as hiking, but I think it has done some real damage to smaller niches, which seem to struggle to maintain active forums.
replies(1): >>43687013 #
3. jjulius ◴[14 Apr 25 22:32 UTC] No.43687013[source]▶
That's a fair point. WATMM, for instance, is finally calling it quits.

https://forum.watmm.com/