5 ms·

This makes me wonder if they purposely submitted a weak case to appear proactive for political purposes, while knowing it would be tossed out. There is a lot of

This makes me wonder if they purposely submitted a weak case to appear proactive for political purposes, while knowing it would be tossed out. There is a lot of money that flows from big tech into the political coffers, so you have to be careful to not rock he boat too much.

Clubber 5y ago
It's certainly plausible. I wonder how many of our institutions are really "just for show," like the TSA.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  What if we replaced the whole anti-monopoly/pro-competition apparatus with a sign that just said "Everything is fine, this is the market working as intended."?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > What if we replaced the whole anti-monopoly/pro-competition apparatus with a sign that just said "Everything is fine, this is the market working as intended."? "This is the market working as intended," does not imply "everything is fine."
markus_zhang 5y ago
I wouldn't be suprised that FTC is just a friend. I mean it's year 2021, they already figured this out in the 19th century.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> This makes me wonder if they purposely submitted a weak case to appear proactive for political purposes, while knowing it would be tossed out. I think its more likely that they were confident that what occurred (complaint dismissed with leave to refile) was the worst they would get, and the best case was that the court would accept the weak and easier to prove claims as sufficient fact allegations to support the case.
akira2501 5y ago
> There is a lot of money that flows from big tech into the political coffers It apparently wasn't enough to prevent Lina Khan's appointment. She's not particularly industry friendly, and I suspect that the FTC will file the amended complaint in this case.
ryanfreeborn 5y ago
Unlikely. High ranking government lawyers usually don't just put on cases to appease the donors of the executive. These are high-achieving, career-driven people. They want to win.
- p49k 5y ago
  Someone still “wins” if they exit the FTC and immediately receive a highly paid lobbying job. The reality of the situation indicates that OP’s idea is likely, actually: https://www.citizen.org/article/ftc-big-tech-revolving-door-problem-report/ https://www.citizen.org/article/ftc-big-tech-revolving-door-...
  - ryanfreeborn 5y ago
    OP's idea is that the FTC punted this at the direction of an elected official who gets campaign donations from tech companies. It does not follow that because the FTC has a revolving door problem (which it definitely does), there was executive pressure to punt. Furthermore, FTC officials tend to work at corporations primarily because they are among the most knowledgeable and well-connected people in the space, not necessarily because there is some kind of slow-acting quid pro quo here. It's still a problem, but it's not really analogous to the idea OP had.

Clubber 5y ago

It's certainly plausible. I wonder how many of our institutions are really "just for show," like the TSA.

Y_Y 5y ago
What if we replaced the whole anti-monopoly/pro-competition apparatus with a sign that just said "Everything is fine, this is the market working as intended."?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > What if we replaced the whole anti-monopoly/pro-competition apparatus with a sign that just said "Everything is fine, this is the market working as intended."? "This is the market working as intended," does not imply "everything is fine."

markus_zhang 5y ago

I wouldn't be suprised that FTC is just a friend. I mean it's year 2021, they already figured this out in the 19th century.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> This makes me wonder if they purposely submitted a weak case to appear proactive for political purposes, while knowing it would be tossed out. I think its more likely that they were confident that what occurred (complaint dismissed with leave to refile) was the worst they would get, and the best case was that the court would accept the weak and easier to prove claims as sufficient fact allegations to support the case.

akira2501 5y ago

> There is a lot of money that flows from big tech into the political coffers It apparently wasn't enough to prevent Lina Khan's appointment. She's not particularly industry friendly, and I suspect that the FTC will file the amended complaint in this case.

ryanfreeborn 5y ago

Unlikely. High ranking government lawyers usually don't just put on cases to appease the donors of the executive. These are high-achieving, career-driven people. They want to win.

p49k 5y ago
Someone still “wins” if they exit the FTC and immediately receive a highly paid lobbying job. The reality of the situation indicates that OP’s idea is likely, actually: https://www.citizen.org/article/ftc-big-tech-revolving-door-problem-report/ https://www.citizen.org/article/ftc-big-tech-revolving-door-...
- ryanfreeborn 5y ago
  OP's idea is that the FTC punted this at the direction of an elected official who gets campaign donations from tech companies. It does not follow that because the FTC has a revolving door problem (which it definitely does), there was executive pressure to punt. Furthermore, FTC officials tend to work at corporations primarily because they are among the most knowledgeable and well-connected people in the space, not necessarily because there is some kind of slow-acting quid pro quo here. It's still a problem, but it's not really analogous to the idea OP had.