Congrats to giphy I guess? But I'll be honest, any time I've ever used them as an extension in slack or anywhere, and tried to get relevant gifs, I got back some really bad results. I'll never fully understand why they're so successful short of just dominating the market through sheer popularity. I remember switching our team over to rightgif and the difference was astounding given the fact that giphy has millions upon millions and loads of developers.
I've always thought part of the "charm" of Giphy in Slack is that does give you those somewhat silly or "not exactly what I was looking for but actually this is funnier" type of GIFs.
The couple of times I have tried to use it to search for a very specific GIF (like searching for a specific clip from a movie) it hasn't really worked, but whenever I use it for more general stuff like "/giphy cardio sucks" or "/giphy hooray" I get some pretty pleasing results.
I'd just like this trend of sending reaction gifs to end.
<rant>
People keep posting them in Slack all the time, but I find it about as appropriate as that brief time when all my uni teachers decided that it's hip to include rage comic faces into every other slide of every presentation.
I can't grok this trend at all. All these replies in the form of memes make me feel like I'm in the Darmok episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
I'm grateful communication on MatterMost at my company has not seen the need for reaction gifs emerge; the wildest thing we have is a custom emoji of a dancing banana.
Whether ironic or not, I found both the initial observation and your reply hilarious. Meme replies really are Darmok, and the meta nature of that is perfect.
```It is a genuine source of hilarity to me that “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra” is a potentially really useful popcultural-reference shorthand for “a situation where two groups face a difficulty communicating because one group speaks exclusively in memes and popculture references”```
I think one difference with "grok" is that, the way it's normally used, there really isn't IMO a perfect English replacement. To me at least, it implies a deeper and broader internalizing of something than saying "I understand it" or "I get it" necessarily implies.
Grokking being beyond understanding something is central to Valentine Michael Smiths understanding of the world, and therefore the plot, in “Stranger in a Strange Land”.
Grok is not simply understanding or knowing a thing, it’s knowing that thing so well and all the things related to that thing, and understanding all of your feelings associated with that thing, that it becomes a part of you. At least, that was my interpretation of it.
Heinlein’s explanation and exposition is more detailed in the actual book. If you have not read it, highly recommended.
Oh, I've read it and it's on my bookshelf. Just something like 3 or 4 decades ago :-) It was never actually a particularly favorite Heinlein for me though so I haven't re-read in a very long time if ever.
Stranger in a Stranger Land was probably more of particular time and place that a lot of Heinlein's works. Although it came out at in 1961--mostly predating the counterculture era in the US, its mainstream cross-over appeal was definitely tied in with the Summer of Love etc. later in the decade.
It really doesn't. It's just a social signaling mechanism meant to give you the feeling of being cool for knowing about it. Every subculture does this, mostly unconsciously. Heinlein was really good at social dynamics and gave his (mostly young) readers the feeling of being initiated into a social elite. His pal L ron hubbard took the same knowledge in a different direction and created Scientology.
And most memes have a meaning that goes beyond the apparent literal one. For instance, see https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/engli... , talking about the use of "because thing" being more than just "because of thing". For instance, "rough and dough don't rhyme, because English". It started as a meme, and now it's in dictionaries.
This is how new forms of communication develop. Sometimes they're random images (images that'll probably be used for even more extensive tracking now), sometimes they're playful changes to language, sometimes they're intentionally invented or modified words because the language lacked a word for a given purpose, and if they catch on enough with enough people they'll become part of communication. Because brains and pattern matching.
It's more "fully comprehend all aspects". You could also say "get" or "understand" or "know" as synonyms for comprehend (in the right context).
Grok works in English, I've been reading it for, what, 20 years in English texts. It mightn't be in dictionaries but they're not the sole arbiters of language.
It comes from US English, AFAIK, a neonym from Heinlein (the sci-fi writer).
I use "grok" in my writing. Sometimes an older person (usually a boomer or Greatest Generation reader) doesn't get it. Usually the Gen X and younger people understand what it means. Anecdotal, FWIW...
I mean, the most obvious difference is that grok is actually in the dictionary. It's totally fair game compared to ST:TNG references. I don't use it in professional writing though, of course.
.. and (as Michael explains on the book) it’s literal meaning in Martian is “drink”, or in other words “to make part of yourself”. It used to really annoy me when people used it to mean “understand”, but I’ve got over that now.
I don't disagree, but as an aside I think the references to that Star Trek episode (which I've been seeing a lot lately) is interesting. I find it amusingly ironic that the most effective way to describe the growing tendency to communicate mainly in cultural references is... a cultural reference.
The only thing more HN than debating the usage patterns of reaction gifs is to... veer further into discussing the file format used to share them. At least today it’s topical!
If you're on Windows, windows key + period brings up the system-level emoji picker. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware there was even such a thing as a system-level emoji picker (I sure wasn't until someone on my team told me about it).
Unfortunately I’m on mac, but maybe I can just copy the emoji from a website and paste it. It didn’t occur to me it might get displayed correctly but not be selectable.
I hear ya. I had to disable animations on gifs and emojis. I keep Slack on a workspace in my peripheral vision. The animations trigger some reptilian fight or flight part of my brain that kills my focus.
Google spreadsheets (and maybe docs) insist on smoothly animating a black dot in the bottom right back and forth. It's in the exact spot of my peripheral vision to make me react as if it's a bug, every single time
1. Type a couple words relevant to the topic or your feelings on the topic into a gif search engine.
2. Pick whichever gif suits the context best.
3. Watch as everyone thinks you're super clever.
------
I mean, I get it. Most people just want funny pictures, and I love sharing memes with friends. But something about reaction gifs just boils my blood. I'm very, very bothered by them. If someone posts a relevant comment, or video: great. If there's something really clever about the reaction gif: good job. But most of the time it's just kind of related, and not really a discussion at all. Or worst of all, a "wow" "lol" or "wtf" expressing funny face.
they ruin all flow of conversation and serve as distraction rather than substance. It's mindblowing to see some Discord and Slack channels just bombarded with fancy moving pictures. It's particularly worse when people won't use the "Thread" feature to contain reactions and sub-conversation to specific comments. It can result in lost information if people aren't careful, but it's almost always better than littering the feed with semi-relevant reaction gifs.
I use emojis a lot in Slack and texting. They can remove some accidental ambiguity in your writing, by making your intent clear. For example, the tongue out emoji can work to make sure people know you're being sarcastic.
Emojis can have ambiguity too. My friends and have been using the eye roll emoji to signal we're being sarcastic for about 10 years. The un-animated version of this emoji looks like "I'm not really thinking what I'm saying", especially on Discord/Twitter.
I've recently a colleague who used the tongue out emoji for sarcasm and the eye roll one for, well, eye rolling with disdain in reaction to something.
The first chat discussions were then quite awkward, because when I were to write something like "You should have tested your code before deploying it... :eyeroll:", he was thinking I was openly looking down on him in front of the team.
We had to have a real discussion about it. It made me tone down my use of emojis - and sarcasm. I suppose using animated emojis (they were in MSN I think?), or GIF reactions would have made the things clearer.
That really is interesting, because as far as I'm aware, I've only seen (and used) the eye roll emoji for, well, eye rolling. At least the iOS one also looks very disdainful to me. So if you had written "you should have tested this " to me, I would indeed have felt pretty bad about it. A more appropriate use would be something like "I walked all the way to there, but they turned me away because they bungled up my appointment ", i.e. something commiserate about. And based on my observation and recollection, I really don't think I'm in the minority here.
> My friends and have been using the eye roll emoji to signal we're being sarcastic for about 10 years.
But why would you assume this works for a random stranger? It seems much more logical to assume they’ll interpret the thing you’ve written as being said while actually rolling your eyes.
That said, it seems entirely appropriate to look down on someone that doesn’t test their code before deploying.
I think at some point you "forget" what some emoji really mean. I've kept my circle of friends quite small in the last couple decades, and we're all using this emoji for sarcasm. It's akin to private jokes, that crack you and your friends up every time, and then when you try one of those with other people, you're the only one laughing.
My other colleagues were not confused by my usage of the emoji, although they've known me for some time now, and they know that I'm not the type of person to actually roll my eyes while talking to someone, or even look down on them.
At least it was a nice reminder that our ways, customs and habits, no matter how normal they seem to ourselves, can still look crazy from the outside.
But I agree with you, it may have been one of the best sentence to use this emoji with. :)
I read this and immediately thought "Holy crap, you eye rolled at him with that comment?! I'd be devastated." Interesting how it works for different people.
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.
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.
I don't think there's a high five emoji. When I search it, I only get the praying/folded hands, and it says that it's rarely interpreted as a high five.
I don't think there's any solid evidence of disproportional use of of one ethnic group by another. You can certainly find individuals who thoughtlessly or deliberately do that but generalizing that to some random population (eg of office workers) is likely wrong.
I think that's just some form of confirmation bias you've formed, as I've never noticed that. I will say most of my offices have been multi-cultural, but even then, I've been on and led teams of white-only males that never succumbed to even posting these gifs. I guess guilting people into censoring their choices is a point of action, but I think the entire process should just be faded out. Slack admins don't need to allow these plugins. Theres nothing stopping people from literally going to giphy.com or whatever, but that's not why it's popular -- and it's definitely not why FB is shelling 400 million for it.
Digital blackface is not my idea, nor is it something I noticed. (I am white.) Someone else explained it to me. I was probably a bit skeptical that a funny GIF of Oprah could be linked to Jim Crow, but in the historical context of blackface there are some unavoidable similarities.
This is kind of the charm we like in our slack. We have preview turned off so you can't cycle through, you just get whichever one it picks. It can be amusing.
Very off topic, but scrolling through the link you posted was amusing, but one of giphy's entries was this: https://giphy.com/gifs/RwQYRsO7s9l6w
Which, I have to say, just made me feel a little sad and now I'm actually starting to consider how giphy's are made... David Finlayson is a world-class trombone player and to have his video reduced to those tags (and associated with that context) was startling. The original video is here, in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soDn2puEuL8
Did somebody edit the video to create that gif, or could that have been machine generated? Are human-made gifs actually a source for image tagging with context???
That's a huge part of it, and what makes a huge difference compared to discord where all you get is the gif. In slack, you see a random gif and the intended message, so a weird gif just adds fun. In discord you just get a gif, so the gif has to convey more, which is hard.
May be it is just me. The worry that typing /giphy without knowing whether I am doing the “I am feeling lucky” version or “let me choose” version and end up embarrassing myself has kept me away from..... well I guess embarrassing myself.
My theory on why they were successful is that they made it possible for "anyone" to quickly respond with a gif response. Responding that way had become "cool" but it was difficult or impossible for people who didn't hoard a stash of gifs.
This sort of solution "Make it easy for the rest of us" is a tried and true winner of traction for products.
A friend of me added support for sending Giphy animations to a school project 2 years ago. He finished that in 2 or 3 hours. The API is basically give us 1 word and we give you givs / jif's / jivs / gif's idk. I atleast I understand why developers want to use it.
For users it can be useless because they do not seam to understand multiple words and they do not have localized memes, so they for example don't understand dutch words and they don't have dutch memes.
Do any of these services let you share your own gifs over slack?
Last time I tried: dragging in gifs (or mp4s or webps) resulted in an attachment, not an inline gif, giphy wanted money to upload your own gifs, and gfycat had some kind of slow and inconsistent review process so that your gifs don't show up in search (or in the slack plugin) for weeks to months after you upload them.
This is the kind of the issue Facebook will help sort out. On the other hand, they will collect a lot of data about trending topics/searches in a bid to sell/suggest more trendy ads to advertisers.
I would guess their success is due almost entirely to solving the licensing issues with the content, and doing so with such competence that major services want to work with them without fear of exposing themselves to liability.
I had a recruiter from Giphy pursue me pretty hard, and all I could think was there's no way I'm going to go to a company that won't be around in a year.
Finally! THIS, rightgif, is exactly what at least 90% of people wanting to use. But another commenter on this very thread mentioned they pretty much just did SEO. Arrgh, hate it.
They prioritized showing up on searches over really precisely tuned results. If you search for an animated gif on any image search GIPHY hits are the main ones. It's all about that SEO.
And then they manage to make it hard to actually post the gif you found via the search engine, so you end up using the giphy platform to do it.
I was hyped when I read that there's a reasonable alternative with better search.
Then I realized that they're exclusively on slack.
Do gifs really only happen on slack for y'all? That's the place I encounter them the least, and I think that's a good thing.
On the other hand, a ton of other places are more suitable for gifs, and (even) less suitable for using a facebook service, so this really hurts right now.
Overall I'm quite sad to see how centralized freaking gif-sharing is, and that it's happenind mostly in walled gardens?!
The most ridiculous thing, I find, is that giphy on Slack prints your search term as well, so others can read it.
That completely takes the fun out of the *.gif for me.
For me, seeing the original search term only increases the hilarity. It often leads to amusing juxtapositions between what the sender wanted to search and the gif they chose, or maybe they included an in-joke or excessively detailed description of something, etc.
The other day I wanted to send a pic of Naomi Scott from “Aladdin” to my colleagues, but I couldn’t get even a single decent one. There was just one in which she was turning around, but that was not even a second long, so no one would had figured out who she was anyways.
Contrast this to Tenor on WhatsApp and the results are much more satisfying.
Clearly this acquisition has nothing to do with either Facebook's or Giphy's businesses...
Not sure you can even call Giphy a 'business' because that would imply that an attempt had been made at creating value.
Yeah I can never find the clip im looking for with Giphy, and if its even slightly controversial of edgy you can forget about it.
I also turn gifs off on slack, its a waste of resources and the gifs are pretty lame anyways.
They are very very quick at creating integrations with other services and as a result they were able to push their brand alongside the growth of gifs these past 5-8 years.
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.
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 tracking identifiers in both directions, it's a tracking vector that's hard to keep out of your app without introducing user friction.
Given that cynical viewpoint, the valuation makes a ton of sense.
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.
From Giphy's end they can still so useful traffic analysis by generating a unique URL for the search result obtained by User A and subsequently sent to his chat cohort. Each cohort app retrieving the same URL could then be enumerated. It's not user-identifying but it would generate a sort of contact graph.
Also the Signal service could do a transparent TLS MitM between the app and Giphy instead of a passthrough TLS tunnel and the user apps would be unaware. In fact from that page I'm not sure they're even doing a tunnel anyway.
While you aren't wrong, in this day and age it's not enough to simply pay. Even if you pay for something, you are still the product being sold. Why would a company leave money on the table, when violating people's privacy is profitable and there is no backlash?
It's not this day and age. Analytics and data mining of customers data is as old as business. 2000 years ago merchants were also tracking who's buying what, in what city, what time of the year, etc.
It's waaaaay more efficient nowadays and way more creepy, but it's not a new invention.
In a society which doesn't care enough and a legal system that doesn't punish unethical behaviour any company tapping unethical revenue streams in addition to the ethical ones will have a competitive advantage and given otherwise similar conditions eventually outperform ethical companies. Once a sole actor goes down that path it puts a lot of pressure on all other actors to throw ethics overboard as well as otherwise their company's survival and in extension their livelihood will be threatened. This is why we can't just rely on market forces sorting everything out, consumers making decision, etc. but have to actively legislate to protect our privacy and personal rights.
What you're describing with that quote isn't cynicism. Especially as far as FB is concerned. That is absolutely business as usual for them and has been for years.
"Cynical" usually implies an element of assuming the worst when such an assumption is far from certain. In this case I think the assumption is spot-on and not at all surprising.
Does the fact that it is integrated into iOS keyboard have any implications? WlWhat kind of data does this have access to when I send gifs from iOS keyboard?
iOS keyboards given “full access” in settings can see literally everything you type. That’s why I don’t use GBoard on my iPhone, also why I don’t enable “enhanced spellcheck” in Chrome.
swiftykey (now owned by MSFT) is terrible as it is constantly trying to call back to microsoft services, even with all "personalization" disabled. I've got my phone locked down with multiple "blocks" I can see it constantly trying to phone home.
It's behavior is no different from Windows 10 telemetry. The keyboard does not even work if you disable one of the underlying telemetry services in the app (if you have a rooted device).
Google messenger (the default texting app) has a gif search that includes giphy, and Discord and slack also use giphy. What I don't see is what data FB is getting when the gif loads. OK, so they can see I am using giphy in Discord. Now what?
Hypothetically speaking, fb gets a request for an image for each person in a chat at roughly the same time. Now they know know what chat platform you're using and who is participating in the chat. I'd venture a guess those participant identities could be de-referenced with data collected from their various [other] trackers. Now they can extend their social graph to include communication patterns on 3rd party platforms.
I'm fairly sure this is False. GBoard uses Tenor (the next largest Giphy competitor), which Google also happens to have bought 2 years ago (undisclosed amount of money). I also just tested Messages and can confirm that the results look like Tenor too.
For Discord, while they initially used Giphy and has a /giphy command, it now uses Tenor too in the GIF picker.
They can also see that you use Discord, as well as how often and how heavily. And potentially other facets that can be derived from whatever metadata is provided to Facebook in the course of serving that image request.
There's also all kinds of shenanigans that they can play in the process of serving that request to harvest other meta data and help fingerprint you. Which Giphy's privacy policy mentions is already done to an extent, in the form of dropping cookies while servicing your request. Cookie abuse itself is a bit of a losing battle, as browser vendors increasingly layer on limitations and restrictions for cookies. But they're far from the only method of fingerprinting possible during the servicing of a web request.
Google already does it with Gmail[1][2], so it's not unheard of. But it adds another layer of complexity, plus is somewhat antithetical to the privacy viewpoint as it then exposes all of the images to the app developer now since it's routed through the proxy server instead of direct end-user -> image server requests.
[1] Can't find a page specifically detailing it, but [2] gives a basic synopsis on it in the context of allowing GSuite admins to whitelist internal domains from routing through the proxy.
I'm still dubious. Giphy hit it's peak of power 2-3 years ago and has plateaued or even tapered since then. It was all over reddit and Slack for a while and then the novelty wore off and competitors popped up.
... which might be what made it cheap enough to be snapped up by Facebook. Who knows, maybe the valuation of giphy would have been much larger 2 to 3 years ago.
Acquisitions often happen after some value is lost from the company being acquired, like when Microsoft bought Nokia or when Yahoo bought Tumblr.
Cookie-based tracking, sure. But there are plenty of other avenues for fingerprinting. This[1] help doc from Adobe Analytics even makes reference to a Subscriber ID header you can get mobile carriers to give you, if you get onto the carrier's whitelist. Nothing the vendors do device/browser-side to restrict tracking will help if your mobile carrier is transparently appending an identifying header to your request after it leaves your phone.
I don't know enough about TLS < 1.3. In TLS 1.3, the whole handshake on both sides is covered by the handshake completion --- if the client handshake was modified in the middle, the client will not accept the server handshake completion.
However, that doesn't stop carriers from inserting something at the start of the stream that the client doesn't see. It would need to be coordinated with the origin server, but that's already true for HTTP header insertion. Sending a pre-handshake blob to a TLS server that isn't expecting such a blob would fail hard though, rather than going on its merry way like an extra header usually would.
I'm really not certain, as I've never seen an implementation that involved it. There was a lot of stink about it 5 years ago[1], which called out the exact argument of it not working for HTTPS traffic. Which, is a substantially larger portion of traffic now than it was at the time.
But you still see nondescript references to the capability in places like that that up-to-date Adobe Analytics doc, and the carriers aren't trying to use legal means (a la lobbying) to slow down the uptick in HTTPS traffic and preserve their revenue stream. Which leads me to presume they've developed technical solutions that are compatible with HTTPS traffic. They can't really use the spray-and-pay method[2] they were using. But all bets are off when they destination site and the carriers are coordinating with each other, as that coordination can involve technical modifications to facilitate it in addition to just the whitelisting itself.
[2] Some carriers would inject a header into all traffic, and any interested party could slurp them up. But you'd have to pay the carrier to access any of the other information the carrier had for that particular identifier.
The other interesting thing about this one, is that they dont even attempt to license content do they? They dont have any content costs?
Theres been this fake (steal) it till you make it, wild west approach to growth. Youtube, Buzzfeed, Imgur. You just host anybodys content regardless of if the poster is the owner, and once you get to scale, then you handle copyright and creating your own content so you arent as dependent on external creators.
But in Giphys case, they never have to take the extra step. Because they are so short, they are much more likely to pass fair use, and they can just host anybodys anything, barring some illegal fringes, without having to pay for the rights.
GIPHY has agreements with pretty much all the major content studios, including ones historically protective of their content, such as HBO, the NFL and Disney.
I think the main problem is not movie studios (where fair use is likely to apply as we're talking about a 10-second GIF out of a 1h+ movie) but all the meme creators on Reddit and other social networks. I assume those make up the majority of GIFs out there and as of now they aren't being compensated or even credited properly.
This is an unpopular opinion, but if the meme creator violated copyright when they made the meme, and they want credit for their “derived version” then they need a license.
I disagree that they violated copyright. If they're using a screenshot or a short clip from a movie that is definitely fair use. On the other hand, what Giphy is doing is copying the entire meme.
What? That's absolutely not guaranteed to be fair use. AFAIK there's no precedent for such things. And even if random people making memes is fair use, Giphy would still be violating the copyright of the original media by hosting nearly unedited clips for commercial reasons. The vast, vast, vast majority of memes are not transformative.
What would be the infringement? I would say any animated GIF (or whatever) should be defined as fair use across the board, since it's impossible to use it for anything other than criticism or comment. It's not exactly like Beastie Boys vs. Chambers Bros, but it rhymes with it.
>GIPHY has agreements with pretty much all the major content studios, including ones historically protective of their content, such as HBO, the NFL and Disney.
Incredible. What a strange time we live in.
This makes me wonder, does Disney have any say if someone uploads a home-made Mickey gif that is controversial or otherwise damaging to their brand?
Facebook, Twitter and Google (YouTube) have used that strategy to ignore their obligations to filter their content by getting into some type of "too bug to fail" situation and throwing their hands up when they are asked to do their duty. Those products didn't fill a niche by innovating, they filled a niche by ignoring the obligations that were preventing others from filling the niche.
> Facebook, Twitter and Google (YouTube) have used that strategy to ignore their obligations to filter their content by getting into some type of "too bug to fail" situation and throwing their hands up when they are asked to do their duty
I don't think this is quite fair to YouTube. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing ContentID. It's not perfect, but it's without a doubt the most sophisticated system to date. It's a difficult problem, but I don't see how you can say they've "thrown up their hands".
I thought the DMCA reporting system was basically made for Google (maybe by Google???) so they could have a middle-ground. They shift responsibility to content owners, through the law; then sell themselves as virtuous through ContentID and keep enough infringing content to not too deleteriously effect their platform -- collecting ad revenue even on content they allow that's infringing.
You can say what you like, but that's genius level politics-business IMO.
no their problem is that the DMCA system sucks as it wasn't even written this century (1998), so they created ContentID as a response. They do benefit from the way the system exists currently because of this since the cost of developing a competitor to ContentID is so seemingly prohibitively expensive that nobody else tries to do what YouTube does.
I wonder if it's similar to music, where you can play a short piece without compensating the artist? Since most gifs are <5 seconds, it's not content stealing.
fair use is an affirmative defense, where you say "yes i stole it, but the government should not protect the content owner from me," similar to "yes i injured them, but it was self defense and they do not deserve compensation."
[1]intellectual property violations are not theft in the strictest sense of the word, they don't remove the original. stealing in this context is colloquial.
Stealing is illegal, as is assault, and you are not convicted of assault in cases of self-defense. Similarly, calling fair use "government sanctioned stealing" is a bit of a stretch.
That's exactly what it is. Fair use is a government granted exception to intellectual protectionism. The government is the one determining what counts as intellectual property violations, and what counts as exempt from punishment.
Without intellectual property law, you would be free to copy anything. The barrier to copying is the government. The free pass to flaunt their rule, when qualified, is also the government.
assault and self defense were my analogy of something similar. im saying they are not different in kind. akin to self defense being government sanctioned murder.
Business models have been created upon flimsier foundations. Come on, capitalists: you've taught us for decades that if someone can make it work, it's above criticism. Are we now discovering moral constraints on profit?
They're integrated into a lot of apps and maybe even apple's OS. In addition to those integration and business relationships they probably have some sort of data sharing / ad tech thingy that's worth some money on its own.
I was surprised it it carried this kind of valuation too, but I think this is a matter of finding the right buyer. This isn't about revenue, it's another way for Facebook to harvest metrics, this time across competing products.
That's not how simple preferred works. That would be participating preferred. And I'd strongly suspect this is simple preferred, as participating preferred is exceptionally rare for Silicon Valley-type companies (it does happen though).
Investors get either the 1x or convert to common. So the most recent investors will take their 1x ($72mm if public sources are correct, which might include some shares bought by previous investors), but previous investors are likely to convert to common if their price per share of purchase is below the acquisition price. But even in your simple example, the $250mm is only split between founders and team, the shareholders who take their 1x are done prior to that point.
No, usually investors stock is preferred with 1x liquidation preference. This means they get their money back, then the rest is split among other shareholders
Why would any of their options be underwater? Going off of those estimates above, the pot split between shareholders after liquidation preference is 250million. Anyone who has shares is able to cash them out I imagine (how much profit dependent on how many shares someone is granted, which varies obviously but is still a positive net) — unless you’re implying the strike price is less than the share value?
Not much, I'd imagine. It'd be like getting FB stock options upon joining and having it drop in price when the stock market tanked in March. That's the point of stock.
Presumably they were accelerated/repurchased out for $0? Replaced by ... what exactly? As a giphy employee what do you get out of the acquisiton beyond maybe some job security?
Not just for the personal finances of the Instagram founders and team. The Instagram acquisition has been, as far as I can tell, a huge success for Facebook.
FB has dramatically reduced ad spend waste. Not sure how anyone can call that valueless. Moreover, though you may be annoyed by your mother-in-law's minion memes, Facebook is a (free) vital communication tool for millions who are less privileged than you.
The facebook hate really just gets out of hand sometimes.
No one denies Facebook makes good products. It’s the egregious and intentional abuse of trust and privacy, with an act now and apologize later mentality that everyone hates. And rightfully so.
> You can’t seriously compare smoking and keeping up with friends and family
You're right: It's easy to smoke outside without harming anyone but yourself -- and even if you smoke indoors, you only harm one room full of people at a time.
No doubt that smoking is way worse than using Facebook. But using Facebook (and similar sites) can cause mental health issues which should be taken seriously.
I'd argue a gif sent to someone during a heated conversation can make it light and end up funny. This goes for anything that anyone uses. I wouldn't compare this with smoking though.
Hmmm, 1.6B do what exactly? Scrolling mindlessly through algorithm-curated feed that ensure users always got the right amount to dopamine to keep them scrolling for hours? Look around you, people that glue to their screen all the time without realized they are being engineered to do what Facebook want them to do, is that really actually good for society?
Don't get me wrong, I use Facebook once in a while to keep in touch with my friends, and in rare occurrence I even feel "Damn, I'm thankful that Facebook exist" I can see the good in them, but the problem they cause to society cannot be denied. The witch hunt, the cyberbully, the echo chambers, the life's hilight showreel effect, the "do whatever in order to get the Like", etc. (Ugh, I need two A4 to list them all!) These problems may existed since the dawn of internet, but it is amplified by social media, and many of them pioneered by Facebook.
I log into FB about once a day and see some pictures of friends who live far away and their children. Sometimes people post funny things. A couple of friends occasionally post interesting or thought provoking articles. My experience as a user is almost entirely positive.
Meanwhile at some level I know it can and is being used in abusive and bad ways. Cyber-bullying, sure. The ever-present outrage machine, pitting the God-loving Americans against the God-hating ones, certainly thrives there. And I once read something or other about enabling horrible hate crimes in Myanmar. And the company itself seems to be a scandal factory, bent on a kind of dystopian mission of collecting data on everyone.
I do struggle a bit with how much to blame the company versus, well, the people who are misusing it. I think a constant lesson of this whole internet thing has been: you can develop the most utterly amazing tools ever, but at least some of your users will take them and use them to be absolute shits.
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.
> Instagram only became sustainable under Facebook.
That's an incredible leap to say IG couldn't develop their own ad network as a stand alone company. Hire a few people away from Google with options in a growing company the same way FB did.
If IG didn't sell they would have fully killed Facebook's relevancy by now.
Do you have a source that they refused any ads at all? There's a difference between having a few tasteful ones and overloading it like it currently is.
Both are extremely valuable.
Giphy data would include a wider user-base, but Onavo has much deeper data (all of someone's mobile data traffic, which would include seeing what someone is searching on Giphy and in which app)
I assume there’s some Great Wall that prevents growth teams from using data from the FB SDK to spy on competitors. Wouldn’t be true of Giphy analytics.
> Since communication is done via TLS all the way to GIPHY, the Signal service never sees the plaintext contents of what is transmitted or received. Since the TCP connection is proxied through the Signal service, GIPHY doesn’t know who issued the request.
> While this does hide your IP address from GIPHY and your search terms from Signal, there are some caveats. The GIPHY service could use subtleties like TLS session resume or cache hits to try to correlate multiple requests as having come from the same client, even if they don’t know the origin.
Signal MAU is probably in the low two digit million range (probably because there are no public data), while Whatsapp MAU is 2 billion as of March [1]. So Signal has maybe 1% of Whatsapp's market share.
Why wouldn’t they just buy the data under the table if they wanted this info instead of publicly acquiring the company? Would be less likely to cause immediate move off the service by competitors and would be cheaper?
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.
They can, as it is end-to-end encrypted; the ends are always the most likely points of leakage. In this case, it's the sender's end.
This is part of the beauty of e2e encryption because you have reasonable access to the "ends". For unencrypted traffic you have no access to the "in transit" part so no knowledge about potential compromise. Since you're relatively confident with e2e that the message can't be read in transit, you only need to check the parts of the transaction you have access to.
In this case, we can check the sender's end by looking at what external entities are accessed (network & API requests from the client). For WhatsApp, there's a total of three I'm aware of:
1. The OS keyboard API. This theoretically means Apple or Google can read everything you type (but not necessarily messages you receive).
2. The Giphy search API for retrieving a list of GIFs to choose from (notable as this means Giphy also gets metadata about your thought process in choosing a GIF, even if you never send one).
3. The HTTP request to Giphy to retrieve the chosen GIF (I'm not 100% sure if this is distinct from the above search request results, due to resolution differences, or if they're all one-in-the-same).
Most likely because their operational costs are borderline obscene due to reliance on Google Cloud for their ML pipeline and moving all their metadata to dynamodb.
I wonder if Signal will now remove their Giphy integration...
edit: Guess they won't ...
We have always used a proxy for our requests to GIPHY, and will continue to do so.
There should be no harm in continuing to use it.
https://signal.org/blog/signal-and-giphy-update/
I saw this on my twitter feed this morning. They don't include the Giphy SDK. They act as a proxy and (ab)use range requests so they don't even see the size of the returned GIF. It's a really interesting read.
And that blog post is from 2017 so those measures have been in place for 2.5 years already.
So Facebook basically just bought inside usage info on a ton of direct competition, even if they stop their integration in the future.
Messaging: Signal, GroupMe, Telegram, Viber
Social Media: Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Tiktok
Dating: Bumble, Tinder
Video: Skype
Does anyone else kind of feel weirded out that this isn't illegal? Not surprising legally or for a move for Facebook, but this just feels incredibly wrong.
I do feel weirded out. Reminds me of WhatsApp's acquisition by Facebook back in 2014: I cancelled my account the minute I learned about this. The only hope is that Telegram acts as a proxy between user searches and Giphy's servers and somehow preserves the privacy of its users.
Ostebsibly any of those services is large enough to serve as a middleman proxy for giphy so that their users requests do not ever visit the Giphy servers. Whether that is going to be against the terms or not is to be determined.
IMO this could simply be some sort of FTC/government formed firewall where a purchased company cannot share historical use data related to competitors unless the users of the service (the competitors, companies listed above) sign off on it. I'm fully aware that the implementation of that is legally complex to say the least, this is a bit more of a wish list than a practicality.
No, I am saying that them retroactively buying it without warning and getting access to the historical data, which users and developers did not intend to give to Facebook, is the off part.
If Facebook bought this or developed it themselves and then these companies integrated Giphy, it's obviously very different. Basically this implies that any data you give to any third party can then basically be bought by your competition. I think legal language that prevents this would likely be a net good thing. I of course realize it's fair game, but that seems like a great way to discourage the use of any third parties generally.
The acquisition itself is very valid from a product standpoint, but I suspect a big reason for the buy was that data on competitors as Facebook claws back against pressure from rising platforms. I would bet a good deal of money this will be used to inform future acquisitions and fuel the black hole of Facebook acquisitions and squashing of any competitors.
> I think legal language that prevents this would likely be a net good thing.
Language that protects end user data across changes in company ownership basic doesn’t exist.
For one thing, if the company goes bankrupt, the data is an asset of values, and the court will allow them to void prior contracts so that they can sell off assets and pay their debts.
This is legal for the same reason pensions get zeroed out during bankruptcies and acquisitions.
If the new owners can steal retirement money from current and former employees, you can bet they can sell whatever treasure troves of data the company has amassed.
Yes, do you genuinely believe that they have sufficiently changed after the vast amount of data given away to Cambridge Analytica and other firms just two years ago mean they should have access to historical data?
I genuinely think you should have to opt in to data sharing when a company covered by CCPA is purchased. I think you can make a very compelling case that this sale covers the sale of data from Giphy to Facebook which many users may not want them to do.
I don't think whether they have changed affects their ability to buy Giphy.
Your CCPA point is interesting though. However my guess is the CCPA is unlikely to be used in that way as it would affect nearly every acquisition in every industry.
Then it should apply in every industry. It is absurd to think that this is not inherent a sale of data and of data collection technologies. I would assume that in Facebook's acquisition these are two different things have been priced in even with other social media companies like twitter removing giphy from within the app, they have years of historical Twitter Gif data. I would find that data much more valuable than something that will probably be removed in short order from many apps now that it is owned by Facebook.
A recruiter asked me to join them back in 2016 and they were paying $200k+ for a senior backend role. I turned them down because I was on a visa and wanted a company with financial stability. A gif-search engine startup sounded ludicrous.
I feel like you can quote just about arbitrarily high number for an SF engineer salary and someone will come out of the woodwork to tell you that it's actually low.
"senior" is overused, in reality a junior-senior can easily make 150k base, a senior-senior can make 250k base. And we're not even talking about netflix.
four years is a decent chunk of time im sure youve done fine since then dont beat yourself up over it - most startups arent really worth joining for the upside potential at IPO or acquisition anyway.
Facebook has a lot of amazing engineers and developer tools, and many of them have great reputations in the industry. I know a lot of people working at Facebook in a variety of roles and they are all happy and proud of the work they do.
You're trying to make it sound like it'll put a black mark on your resume or something.
Giphy shows good results but the search is quite slow IMO, I hope this improves in the future.
If you haven't read Facebook by Steven Levy I recommend it, the book explains quite well what happened after the acquisitions of Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus.
Facebook search is still.. terrible... I don't get it.. They should have enough hires from Google that they could make it rock. I am not talking about regular Google style search but contextual person search etc... So much opportunity here.
Hatching Twitter is very interesting and has a lot of drama, I loved it. I found that Elon Musk had a boring writing style (very slow to start). I also recommend Bad Blood, it's hard to stop reading it once started.
One great aspect of Facebook is that Zuckerberg interviewed with the author for years and the cut into parts makes a lot of sense (Harvard and before, "Move fast and break things", Trump, aftermath).
Damnit, I turned down a follow-up interview with Giphy years ago since I didn't think they were sustainable and I had been burned by startups in the past. Shows how much business sense I have!
Unless you wanted to be acquihired into Google/Instagram, you likely wouldn't have made any money in equity. This acquisition is $200M less than their most recent valuation from 4 years ago, the investors are probably taking everything and most employee options are likely underwater.
It happens. I turned down a job at Shazam very early on because I couldn't understand what on earth their business model was. They were recently acquired by Apple for (coincidentally) $400m. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazam_(application) The actual start up I founded instead fizzled into administration.
It wouldn't have been life-changing money for you, it would have been a minor bonus. Usually, only the founders make life-changing money from big deals except in very rare instances, like Microsoft and Google. I doubt any but a few very early employees did well at Shazam. Meanwhile, I'm sure what you learned at the startup you joined was far more valuable than whatever the bonus was. You made the choice with the information at hand.
Equity for employees is trash value. You would do well to just pretend it doesn't even exist when factoring decisions about where to work or if to change jobs. I never ask for equity, I never care about equity. I care about the salary.
Those were innocent times. When it founded it seemed like a stupid toy, and no one on the general public was talking about it's now obvious eventual use case as a surveillance tool.
Well to be fair, no one still talks about that publicly as a selling point, they use other words instead like "collecting aggregate data on user purchasing trends"
eh, it's silly to have those kinds of regrets. You can't predict the future, and you made a reasonable decision based on the information you had. I wrote this a few years back when thinking about what it means to regret something: https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/science/time/
I would say never regret your decision when the future turns out unexpected. You made an educated guess, and you could have no idea that they would be success.
Imagine how many billions of Referrer headers Giphy gets every day. Imagine all the AI training material that comes in when people try to turn a search term into an image. $400mil for a human-curated dataset that pays dividends in ongoing harvestable data over time is chump change for Facebook.
My guess/suspicion is that in isolation the data's depth is pretty tame. The issue is when all the nitty gritty data is then tied with Facebook's.
IMO the bigger issue is that anyone integrating with them basically is telling Facebook about their app's usage stats now, which makes it easy for Facebook to see current and future competition as well as any emerging markets they can sink their fangs into. Adding Giphy is a great way to get your lunch eaten now as a startup in any remotely competitive space to Facebook.
To me it's kind of wild this type of acquisition doesn't violate some law (though not surprising) as this gives immediate historical data insight into dozens of direct competitors even if they stop integrating in the future.
I would not be surprised if the blatant copyright infringement that is rampant on Giphy has scared off potential buyers in the past.
I know, I know, there's an argument that it's fair use, but that doesn't mean that legal costs won't be incurred to make that argument, nor that the argument will be ultimately successful.
I suppose if there's any company that's able to take on that legal risk, it's Facebook.
Well, Facebook gets away with absolute murder in regard to copyrighted infringement (especially in the non-English parts of the site) so it's a good fit.
Copyright holders don't care about users sharing seconds' worth of content and bringing them free advertising. And even if they do, Facebook already handles DMCA requests at a massive scale. There's no legal risk for them.
In this case I'm not sure anti-trust would help? Giphy doesn't have a monopoly and the product is straightforward to replicate by doing the same thing they did - ie scraping and stealing content at scale.
It would because giphy is a great proxy to find out what people are CURRENTLY talking about, or how they are feeling, based on the gifs they're searching for.
This can fuel better ads. So consolidating this stuff further could have that effect.
To me it is so creepy how much of even our casual thoughts outside of facebook now are going into facebook servers. There's just no escaping these data addicts. That's the concern.
See, I said anti-trust. Not anti-monopoly. Anti-trust was, traditionally, about preventing market distortions by market actors that are becoming too big and powerful. It wasn't solely about monopolies. The whole "we're not a monopoly" shtick has been pushed by corporations in recent decades as if that absolved them completely from behaving in anti-competitive ways, and for some reason your average schlub has eaten it up, hook line and sinker, and politicians are more than happy to cut them slack because of lobbying.
Especially now, when you have companies like Giphy being tied into services across the globe and providing a surprising amount of data about users and usage patterns, the idea of monopolies is completely obsolete. It's time to bring back the idea of companies not being allowed to much reach, power and control over all aspects of our lives, as well as being able to use it to assert control over competitors and users alike.
Question os: How many will switch it out? Giphy has a big collection of images and works ... swapping is effort and brings different (unexpected?) results.
Again, a small number of people might do that, if one gets too large by chance Giphy/Facebook will attempt to block them. Most users and integrations will be kept. As people stay on WhatsApp etc.
Makes me wonder whether you could use trends in use by employees at a large company to do some trading. If their gifs turn negative in advance of an earnings report, that’s probably not a good sign.
I've been watching this a bit in other sectors, but I'm fascinated to see if there's a real uptick in "Vulture Buying" as the effects of the financial markets really settle in. This may have been something in the works for a while but you have to wonder as some companies that have likely weathered the storm well start on a spree of discount shopping.
I've not been looking really there, most of my thoughts have been around the commercial real estate market and media entertainment private equity companies.
Giphy, could (total spitballing here) could be a company that was a bit overvalued in VC terms, and might not have consistent cash flows and solid fundamentals where an acquisition makes sense to take their money off the table now. There might be others.
Or this marriage has been in the works since December and just got pushed through now. Strange times.
Public markets (especially SP500) don't really reflect impact to small companies. There's a ton of constantly amplifying risk and bleed happening all over, it's just not evenly distributed.
You're probably thinking of imgur, which lost some steam when Reddit added their own image hosting. Only a few dozen giphy links get posed each day: https://www.reddit.com/domain/giphy.com/new/
Wow, this is crazy to hear about! Back in college I worked on a fun way to share snippets of music with friends directly in iMessage called RapBits (essentially audio gifs). I reached out to Adam Leibsohn who was the COO of Giphy at the time. He immediately replied to my cold email excited about the idea and offered to help. He also asked about how we were handling legal. We didn't have an answer, in fact UMG had basically threatened to shut our app down in a meeting we had with them in LA originally thinking it'd be a great partnership meeting (the music industry kinda sucks). Really appreciated his response in that moment, he basically told us to keep going and see what we could do with it and just have fun!
Kind of wild to see such a fun / not-so-serious seeming product have such a huge exit and profound impact on the way we communicate now
Then again, I am very curious if Facebook's content board will do something about wearing a bikini being a account closure level offense for sex workers/cam models and completely okay for celeb influencers.
Instagram seemed expensive at $1bn in 2012 and ultimately turned out to be a very savvy buy, so I feel like I should trust Facebook on this one.
I'm kinda surprised Imgur hasn't sold in a similar way yet, it seems to have slightly more sense of community than Giphy which is more broadly known as a search engine for GIFs.
How many times are you going to make the same comment on this thread? This is a pretty good angle for farming karma on HN but you have to be more subtle about it.
Startup business models should not be to be sold...but to make money and be useful. And I am saying this because those companies are becoming too big and too powerful.
Struggling to understand the value-add for Facebook here. For a while they were buying businesses for the coveted "screen time" - VR, messaging, etc. Everyone expected that they would monetize or integrate those platforms, and they did for most apps.
So I guess if I post a giphy in a work chat they will now get an extra few seconds of ~100 people's screen time/day. What's the point? I doubt they will overlay ads. So what else? Some form of content control? Only show pics that ascribe to Facebook's agenda?
Makes sense, it seems like a great way to inject ads coupled with facebooks profile information it's likely a goldmine
You start a campaign and suddenly you have people inserting meme-like-ads feature your content into their chat threads
It'll have a personal and convincing touch ( esp. with facebooks ad targeting) it's going to be amazing for our industry reaching customers, Pepe/Trump memes did win an election afterall
Also a great way to get ads into whatsapp messages without seeming intrusive
Yes, they pay. Because it helps keeping users active, in case of Instagram, for example. And in slack's case, I think when you install the app you can have it for free (with limitations), or pay to remove said limitations. In that case, slack may not (IMO) pay then.
It's a significant discount from previous funding rounds according to Techcrunch: "Giphy last raised $72 million at a reported $600 million valuation at the end of 2016"
Duh. I am sure of one thing what is going to happen for pretty little Giphy service. Instagram was cool. now, I see sponsored Ads for every two posts. It is annoying to be in Insta nowadays. I suppose this is going to happen for Giphy as well. How frustrating if you are searching for quick witty gif and you see a sponsored ads in it.. you never know FB monster can do this.
For me Giphy is the poster child of Google's infuriating decision to put videos in the image search results. It's almost impossible to find a gif you can properly embed an HTML these days. Sure, you can use search terms to filter out giphy.com but then a hundred other copycat websites only fill the void with more videos masquerading as image files.
They don't have a "moat" though - no cutting-edge technology or even content licenses (it's all stolen). Anyone can build their own alternative to it very easily and I'm confident it'll quickly happen to any company that competes with and/or feels threatened by Facebook.
Err, no. This is a serious underestimation of the difficulty involved in acquiring users. Networks effects are a moat. Market share can be a moat.
You don't need to just "build your own alternative to it." You need to get all the content (this is actually not as easy as you make it seem - stolen or not), then integrate that into Instagram, WhatsApp, Slack, and hundreds of other platforms across the world as the supported way of sharing gifs. Then you'll have to build a brand around the product that people remember, and whose website they actually visit when they want images and aren't using one of the hundreds of platforms that already natively integrates giphy.
And in order to do all that, you'll have to somehow manage to convince everyone out there that your gif search system is better than their gif search system that they already know, are comfortable with, and generally happy with. Your pitch will probably be that theirs is owned by Facebook, and is therefore a violation of their privacy. But you know who else is owned by Facebook? Facebook. And yet Facebook is pushing close to 2 billion daily active users.
Convenience trumps privacy in modern society most of the time. I'm sure there will be a changing of the winds - there always is - but there likely will not be significant competition for Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Giphy/Google/(put any other company in here) until that comes. The network effects are too strong, and the convenience is too great.
There are so many posts about "(Twitter/Facebook/Giphy) clone in a (day/weekend/week/month)" and yet there's a distinct lack of commercial successes in these spaces.
Giphy was the reason why at my last job, a manager inadvertently posted porn to our slack channel.
Nevertheless, giphy was just a gif image host. They do have access to current meme culture, which I imagine is useful to FB. But for me, thats just a less of a reason to use them. Im data-mined enough already.
Facebook has now got a foot into its competitor's data.
Retrieving unique device ID from Android phones(below Android 11 of course) is a cakewalk and Giphy requires that for its client SDK
Congrats Alex Chung! Met him a couple times in NYC and he was gracious and kind. I remember him mentioning that Giphy is the largest search engine behind google or so, which makes sense as everyone's searching for cool gifs in chat whenever they can. :)
I don't understand why someone downvoted you. Giphy is used by many services and Facebook owning, having access to that data and the insights it could provide into the whole landscape would lead me to looking for another solution, although them purchasing it will give them all of the historical data they'd need to find new niches, successful and growing competitors or market segments that they can just copy into FB. The laws certainly haven't caught up with this new age of anti-competitiveness that's possible with how a single entity is tied into so many competing companies, and so just a big competitor buying up that resource certainly gives an arguably unfair competitive advantage.
Edit to add - TLDR: this essentially gives a backdoor to Facebook for usage at other companies who integrated the service.
Gifs may be fun to watch the first time, but I have to say it drives me crazy to have a bunch of looping animations running all over the screen when i'm trying to focus on something.
It's a data grab. Just imagine how many places Giphy has "integration" with. And the contents of a gif might be really telling, they are already very well tagged.
The only time I use giphy is through google keyboard (yes, I send a lot of memes). I guess google will have to pay them now? Or will keyboard stop supporting giphy?
Im working on a new conversation app and I'm explicitly never going to allow gifs or emojis as they degrade the conversation , distract, and prevent meaningful dialog.
Could you stop? Don't you have enough? Let me guess. Giphy will now be used to spy on people, it won't be chronological any more, Zuck bought this because it threatens his internet empire, etc etc...
Quite the contrary. Expect to see a lot of M&A activity this year. These are times where companies with positive cash flow can do strategic acquisitions at a discount.
Nice to know, their domains are going directly to my banned sites list. They have acquired gliphy to extend reach of their pixels and well... I can live without gifs.
Zuckerberg is really desperate paying $400m for this, this is worth $100m max. Like somebody said earlier Imgur would make more sense. And btw VCs who invested late stage in Giphy lost money.
I had the same thought. Although it looks like Signal uses a proxy for GIPHY requests [1] and has at least thought about the privacy implications of GIPHY support [2].
"Most users don't care about the value of the data." In a world of micro transactions every user could for example be paid fraction of a cent every time he or she sees an ad thus sharing revenue with Facebook.
I can't help but think of all the millions of economically useful people who lost their jobs over the past couple of months because of COVID19... And contrast that with all the economically useless Giphy employees and executives who not only get to keep their jobs but get massive bonuses.
Could you please not post flamewar style comments to HN? We're looking for curious conversation, not denunciatory rants, and you've done this 4 times in this thread alone.
