last week, Facebook Chairperson of the Federal Trade Commission Lina Kahn has asked her to refrain from making any decisions regarding Facebook. Two weeks ago, Amazon made a similar request, saying that the two technology giants had previously expressed their views on the technology industry and that it had investigated silicon valleys in Congress and allowed them to take control of the industry.
It is a bold claim at one stage that regulators who are happy to be successful at a major level will never warn that they are equally biased in the opposite direction, and if the logic is accepted, only Big Tech or partners will be allowed to control those who do not know the industry.
On the other hand, Zefer Tachaw, a law professor and atheist, said in a recent interview with the Enterprise Podcast Decorated that the practice of infidelity also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. When Khan was nominated for FTT, the news media referred to her as the “most popular Big Tech commentator” in the world.
Khan partially acquired that Monik, a Hill partner, led the leaders of the Bilateral Justice Committee on Silicon Valley, and was featured in an article entitled “Amazon Opposition Paradox.”
That is where the confusion comes in. Although Amazon is a key topic in the 2017 Yale Law Journal article, the company will be used as a research tool to provide a broader point.
The article often claims that Khan was an enemy of Amazon himself when the paper was actually being debated, rather than examining scholars who have been based on a policy of atheism for 40 years. This is clear from the introduction to the paper: “The current framework on anti-trust, especially the short-term commodity prices, is not competing to compete with the market power structure in the market. Modern Economy ”
The paper’s argument is that clarity has led many politicians to believe that the “consumer safety standard” is simply not enough for platforms. She attacks her argument in a way that is both understandable and undeniable:
If we are primarily measuring competition in terms of price and results, we will not know the potential impact of the Amazon-dominated competition. In particular, how can current teaching ensure the vulnerability of attackers and the integration of specialized business lines into anti-competitive? These concerns have been added to the context of online forums for two reasons. First, forum markets create incentives for the company’s profit to grow, a strategy that investors have rewarded. In these cases, the Savior’s pricing would be very reasonable – although the current teaching is unreasonable and therefore unnecessary. Second, online platforms serve as an important mediator, coordinating across business lines and controlling the necessary infrastructure that their competitors rely on. This dual role also enables the platform to exploit the data collected by companies that use the services to weaken it as their competitors.
Concerns over Khan’s lack of faith in orthodoxy are not unique to the technology sector, and the idea that she should use herself as chairperson has to be expanded to other industries with a new focus. As Teachout put it
Khan’s article was really useful about Amazon, but it was more than Amazon. It was really about farming. And it’s about airlines. And it’s about signing. And it’s about the way we think about economic policy. So my pet Pen often sees Khan as a big tech or anti-tech opponent, anti-tech side – not anti-tech at all. One of the things we see is that these big tech companies are destroying creativity, buying competitors, enabling people who can come up with more interesting ideas. It’s pro-tech, and it’s not just about technology policy, it’s about economic theory.
So it is very much based on reality. The concept is to focus on what is really going on, not on what it is. And that’s where Khan’s training is. She started talking to poultry farmers about their experiences. She has written about races, and patents, and Monsanto’s great articles. So she really started with Ag. And then those insights sometimes helped her to see great technology without the confusion and kind of fascination that technology brings, “People tech is so new! Everything is upset! This has never happened before. ”She went in and looked like,“ Hey, I saw this. I saw this with Monsanto. I know these experiences, because that’s what Tyson does. ”And I think it’s important that she understands change as a proponent of innovation, for the workforce, for the small business, for the near-equality.
Listen to the full interview here or wherever you find podcasts.