With respect: given the way that HN works (and that's not bullshitting--you've been here even longer than me!), I think that any discussion that is remotely interesting or useful (or both) will be a "meta discussion". There is not much to say textually given the way current politics or belief systems are structured. There's no oatmeal-middle statement that actually means anything. And, to that end, I would not run away from the "meta discussion" as the original poster who led to it.
I intended to spark a discussion about the expectations of this acquisition, rather than a discussion about the way we and our online communities react to news like this. Of course, this very comment clearly counts as both “meta discussion” and “meta meta discussion.” :)
But you get what I mean, yeah? Like, nobody has any interest in "the merits of the acquisition". It's all feels-based. It's whether you like conglomeration or not. (Spoilers: I don't, don't, don't!) To that end, your original question would totally sprout up the discussion it did. It couldn't not.
I wouldn’t say I’m inherently against conglomeration, except that that word has negative connotations. I have certainly at times been excited about companies I like getting acquired by other bigger companies I like, simply because of the vast resources that can be made available to the smaller company.
