[xvector]

Lina Khan may have written great papers but she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate for big tech and cannot be impartial in her dealings.

See her recent attempt to prevent Meta from acquiring Within. There is no sane, level-headed case that could possibly paint this acquisition as an antitrust violation. Even most legal experts will agree that Lina Khan's case is a stretch at best.

It's clear that this case is simply motivated by a hatred for Meta more than anything rational, and such decision making can harm the emergence of nascent technology such as AR/VR.

[xxpor]

The FTC chairperson is a part of the Executive branch, not a judge. It's not her job to be impartial; she's allowed to have a point of view.

[granzymes]

FTC commissioners wear many hats. They exercise executive power in a rulemaking capacity, but they also have both prosecutorial and quasi-judicial power. They can authorize complaints, and the commissioners sit as an appellate court to review the decisions of their in-house court.

[whatshisface]

I don't know anything about the acquisition, but speaking generally, appointees leave less lasting precedent when they spend their time chasing individual vendettas rather than establishing consistent ruts that the system can run down once they leave.

[basch]

There is a point where changing the rules now appears to benefit incumbents, despite them being the targets here. Nobody new will be able to grow this way to compete with existing large players. If they cant acquire small things, they will just be forced to clone them, yet the smaller tier players wont be able to "just clone things."

Instagram falls into the same category. When Mark acquired it, it was tiny. He is who grew it. Facebook acquired a mobile camera app because it didn't have an app yet. Same how it acquired Beluga and turned it into messenger. Adobe acquiring Photoshop, then Macromedia. Mirosoft acquiring Powerpoint and then hotmail.com.

[cmrdporcupine]

I don't think your analogy holds here; Instagram was already an active and popular social network before Facebook acquired it, not a "camera app." Did it grow? Certainly. While we don't know what would have happened to it had FB not bought it, it's quite possible FB bought it precisely because it was growing and becoming 'cool.'

[basch]

Instagram was what, 19 month old when FB bought it? It has 13 employees. It had 0 revenue. It had 30 million people on it. (Facebook hit a billion people in 2012.)

It was tiny. It was the hip up-and-coming app. It had the limelight, and importantly to FB it was mobile first.

I think our memories like to kind of project back its success after acquisition onto what it was before, and get distorted by its billion dollar price. He paid a lot for a not a lot, because he was buying a fad while it was still hot, before Twitter or Google could. He then dumped gasoline on a matchstick. Would ANYBODY else have poured that much money into Instagram that quickly? I think we can all picture what would have happened to it if it had found its way into the Twitter portfolio. (I would surmise it may no longer even exist and have been folded into Twitter having a picture posting feature.)

In hindsight it was absolutely anti-competitive in some way, but I don't know how the law could act to block buying shiny things with potential.

[whatshisface]

The law is usually applied in retrospect, for what it's worth.

[jessaustin]

Legal opinions vary. Certainly Robert Bork would agree with you. He would also probably agree with your vicious libel of Chair Khan.

Those who really care about the development of particular technologies typically don't welcome consolidation in related industries. It wouldn't have been good news for electric cars, if Tesla had been acquired by GM in say 2008. Why the unhinged invective against Khan?

[xvector]

It's neither libel or unhinged. I'm not the only one out there that finds the case around Within a stretch at best.

Plenty of mergers and acquisitions have driven technological progress, and so long as they aren't anticompetitive it's not problematic. See Meta and Oculus, for instance, or Apple's merger with Next.

Acquisitions and mergers fundamentally reduce duplication of work and allow you to combine building blocks to create something greater. Blindly blocking any and all of them as Khan is, is indicative that her bias against big tech has the potential to harm progress overall for no perceivable actual gain.

[jessaustin]

...she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate... There is no sane, level-headed case... simply motivated by a hatred for Meta more than anything rational...

...

It's neither libel or unhinged!

ITT you've claimed that she isn't sane, isn't rational, is motivated solely by hate, and is unfit for her job. You've given us no reason to believe any of this, and the source of it all seems merely to be a political disagreement. This is a respected professional who has been nominated by the president and approved by Congress. Please, find a hinge.

I'm not the only one out there that finds the case around Within a stretch at best.

Yes we've already established that you agree with Robert Bork. I'd say probably Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito are also on your side. Care to cite some less odious support?

Khan and FTC clearly don't have the resources to block all mergers and acquisitions. It's amusing that you complain this impossible thing is happening in the same thread in which your political bedfellows complain it isn't happening. [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34507781

[basch]

Regulatory cases like this get launched to test the waters. I see the Within thing as tipping at toe in, to see what the judicial branch will allow them to get away with. They are probably reaching for an extreme on purpose to find the boundary.

[ClumsyPilot]

> She harbors a hate for big tech

Oh no, how the big tech has suffered since she took up the post, their profits have... Tripled? This cant be right!

Is Big tech a cult and anyone not worshipping them is the enemy?

You do realise her job is to police big tech, not to do their bidding. She should like them no more than a prison guatdrd likes prisoners.

[eropple]

Can you enlighten me as to why this is only a problem when somebody is not reflexively in favor of handing the keys to everything to large companies, and not when they are?

[scythe]

From Wikipedia:

>Within was named[13] the #1 VR app for iOS by Apple Insider, featured[13] as "Best New App" on iTunes and is the most downloaded and highest rated[14] cinematic VR app for Google Cardboard.

This appears to be a clear-cut case of consolidation of key companies operating in a sector. Care to share why you think this isn't "sane"?

[stonogo]

How does this hatred work? Does she keep a leaderboard? Does big tech include foreign companies? I don't know much about this person other than the usual media bio sketches. Where can I read more?

[xvector]

It works through frivolous lawsuits attempting to block everything Big Tech does regardless of reason, eg the acquisition of Within, which has no justifiable antitrust case whatsoever.

[jessaustin]

Within is an app developer whose apps compete with apps owned by Meta, run on hardware owned by Meta, and are sold in an app store owned by Meta. Why does this confuse you?

[xvector]

There is no viable anticompetitive case for VR as it is a nascent industry which barely exists. Furthermore, Meta is far from the only player in the VR space today - Valve, Pico, HTC, Samsung, and Microsoft amongst others all play a role in the VR ecosystem.

[dannyr]

"block everything" yet you only have one example.