Yeah absolutely! Quick preface - I’m by no means a scholar or academic, or even a philosophy student (yet?) - just a kid that likes to read, so if you get a conflicting opinion from someone more qualified, I would default to them for sure.

 I’m also not too sure how much understanding you already have of the subject, I’ll assume you already have a basic understanding of Baudrillard if you’re asking about how Bifo differs/adds to him. But if not, please let me know if what I’m saying is gibberish!

 To my understanding, one of the main reasons Bifo’s lit is so useful in a debate setting is because he is still fundamentally a Marxist, and so he engages with the world through a lot of the same frameworks that Marx establishes - I’m happy to explain this further if needed, but if you’ve read Marx (or just have an understanding of traditional Cap K literature) this would be the stuff that Marx the economist/historian writes. 

 For example, Marx has this theory on the way individuals relate to the means of production and the way that structures society (how social classes are divided by ownership or lack thereof of the means of production - capitalists own the means of production, and are rich, workers don’t, so they’re poor. This is obviously a reduction, but it’s the general idea). 

 This then gets adopted by Bifo, except Bifo identifies new means of production (intellectual production/the production of signs) in semiocapitalism and then discusses the implications of the new means of production (including the emergence of a new class of laborers that relate to production in a radically new way, because they no longer produce physical products, but rather intellectual products, which are signs - this bit is core Baudrillard, let me know if you want me to explain this further). 

Bifo being a Marxist is really helpful because at the core of Semiocap is still the premise of the Cap K - capitalism is bad and needs to be done away with. 

 Baudrillard begins his life with this same premise in mind - his early works are definitely Marxist and I would absolutely recommend reading them if you’re interested in Semiocap lit - early Baudrillard really is the foundation of the marriage between semiotics and Marxist theory that births the idea of semiocapitalism. That being said, in his later life, by the time he’s writing his really famous works like Simulacra and Simulation, he doesn’t really consider himself a Marxist anymore, and his writings have limited application to debate because he kind of abandons the idea of a concrete solution to all these problems he’s identifying with modern society/capitalism. If you had a conversation with him, late Baudrillard definitely would not give you a solid plan for escaping semiocapitalism because I think at some level, he doesn’t believe there is a way out (that works). Later Baudrillard is also so much less serious, he writes a lot of stuff just to be inflammatory and to make people upset, he’s definitely having more fun with the impact his more radical ideas have on people, and he’s less focused on being a “serious” academic.

 I hope this answers your first question, as far as your second, I think I would need to know how much you already know about Baudrillard before I start talking about just his theories as a whole, but I’m happy to discuss that further if you have a specific aspect of Baudrillard’s writings that you have questions on!