The article quotes the CMA:

> Alternatively, it could change the terms of this access – for example, Facebook could require Giphy customers, such as TikTok, Twitter and Snapchat, to provide more user data in order to access Giphy GIFs. Such actions could increase Facebook’s market power, which is already significant.

And then, as if to show that the author hasn't understood a tiny bit of the issue at hand, he writes:

> Putting aside the logic that someone would switch to using Facebook because of GIFs (I love GIFs as much as the next person, but come on), the CMA argues that Giphy was in the process of building up an ads business that would have competed with Facebook.

It's not "building an ads business", the issue the CMA has is that everyone and their dog, including people not on Facebook, uses Giphy - which means that if Facebook were to buy Giphy they could scoop up an awful lot of data.

They start learning who you're working with in Slack, and you start seeing them in your friends suggestions. I don't think there's any reason to expect that FB would act in any kind of good faith with this stuff - why else would you buy a gif hosting platform if not for the entrenched integrations and their access?