[from]

> Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

Is this a puff piece? She's just some government employee - she doesn't produce anything. It remains to be seen whether her aggressive interpretation of antitrust law will actually benefit consumers. We can split up Google into 100 companies and then we'll find out that the bales of cash advertising produces are no longer subsidizing the less profitable services. Maybe you'll have to pay to upload to YouTube or you won't get 15 GB of free gmail space or Hangouts will require an enterprise plan. But it'll all be worth it because some other adtech company who cares even less about your privacy than Google will now be able to sell search ads?

[basch]

I was casually pointing out someone comparatively green was in charge now, as opposed to an experienced tenured dogmatic bureaucrat. I left it ambiguous whether inexperience would be a boon to free thinking and a new era or a hinderance and burden to the economy. Maybe things have been being done the way they were "always" done, for a reason. Take it as a rorschach test.

[dabedee]

I think your comment was valuable in that it suggested the work being done on antitrust by Lina Khan. For those who are interested, I would also recommend reading the excellent Matt Stoller on Substack [1] who does a weekly analysis on antitrust regulation, monopolies, and more.

[1] https://mattstoller.substack.com/

[nr2x]

Except she isn’t. You’re totally incorrect on all your comments.

[from]

He is talking about how the prevailing attitude towards antitrust in the executive branch has changed. Lina Khan is a symbol and motivator of that change. Not sure what you're talking about.

[lovich]

You’re summarizing the problem with trusts in capitalism here in your argument. Capitalism works to generate innovation and wealth because there’s competitive forces driving that. No one can compete with gmail and YouTube because they are being subsidized by another business segment. If you get rid of that competition it leads to stagnation

[gggggg5]

> No one can compete with gmail

This is kind of very obviously not true.

>and YouTube

Lots of companies operating in the video delivery space too.

[lovich]

> This is kind of very obviously not true.

Who is competing with gmail? Please include market share and revenue in your analysis

>>and YouTube Lots of companies operating in the video delivery space too.

This is more defensibile than the YouTube argument, there is Rumble and Vimeo for instance. But again, What is the market share and revenue for YouTube vs these other “competitors”?

[gggggg5]

>Who is competing with gmail? Please include market share and revenue in your analysis

Outlook, Yahoo, (insert a long list of Chinese providers here), Yandex, Fastmail, Zoho Mail, Hey, Protonmail and so forth.

All of the above have actually managed to capture a decent share of the market, and there are many more.

>This is more defensibile than the YouTube argument, there is Rumble and Vimeo for instance. But again, What is the market share and revenue for YouTube vs these other “competitors”?

Instagram and Facebook are also huge in the same space. I'd guess that Akamai is even bigger.