Facebook's seized files published by MPs

Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by athrowaway3z on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @10:33AM (#18609105)

I can't answer your question but i think you should be more specific.

Your phrasing obviously comes with the interpretation that if a split-up would bankrupt a part, it shouldn't be done. Why should this be taken into consideration?

Secondly. It has value. A different party could invest and keep it going. Why is it important that it sustains itself?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by michaelt on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @11:49AM (#18609979)

If the objective is to increase competition, by making WhatsApp into the Facebook competitor they currently aren't, you need them to stay in business.

Of course, if you just wanted to punish facebook by destroying shareholder value, or you're certain WhatsApp users will move to an FB competitor rather than to FB itself, you might not care if WhatsApp stays in business post-breakup.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by maemilius on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @12:52PM (#18610626)

As far as I'm aware, the only thing WhatsApp competed with Facebook over is Messenger, and even that seems like a stretch to me.

My impression of the situation is that Facebook bought WhatsApp for its data and user-base; not because it was competition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook's seized files published by MPs by kypro on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @12:37PM (#18610467)

I guess it's not like anyone is employed to work on Whatsapp or anything. It's not like millions of people use it to stay in contact with their families every day.

[ Parent | on HN ]