Khan wasn't just advocating for generic regulation, she specifically warned that allowing unchecked consolidation would make the companies themselves weaker and

Khan wasn't just advocating for generic regulation, she specifically warned that allowing unchecked consolidation would make the companies themselves weaker and less innovative. She argued that "maintaining open, fair, and competitive markets, especially at technological inflection points, is a key way to ensure America benefits from the innovation these tools may catalyze." It's mentioned that U.S. tech companies "would buy the company, kill it, and absorb some of its staff" instead of competing through innovation. That's why it isn't about overregulation, it's about the lack of enforcement of existing antitrust laws during "the Bush and Obama eras [which] saw unbridled growth and mergers." The DeepSeek situation is a symptom of this problem. When companies could simply acquire or crush competitors rather than out-innovate them, they "got fat and happy inside their castles" and "pivoted from technological innovation to performing alchemy with spreadsheets." So this isn't just a binary choice between competition and regulation. The article's argument is that failing to enforce basic antitrust laws actually hurt competition and innovation. Whether you agree with that interpretation or not, it's more nuanced than just "competition good, regulation bad." You are the one trying to separate these issues despite the article making a clear case for their connection.