Hacker News Reader

Comment by Manuel_D | Hacker News Reader

> She seems wildly inexperienced.... Clearly smart and motivated, but wildly out of her depth. No wonder they failed to prevent the Microsoft + Activision Blizzard merger. Lawyers with decades of experience on her ran around her in circles

Or maybe because there wasn't actually a good case to block the merger? Neither Activision-Blizzard nor Microsoft are anywhere near monopolies in gaming. Believe it or not "big tech is bad" is not a sufficient case for blocking a merger, actual consumer harm or threat of it has to be demonstrated.

I'm less convinced this is an issue of Kahn and her team's inexperience, so much as that the FTC is being expected (or maybe directed by the executive) to take on cases that don't have any merit to placate public opinion. "Big tech bad" is a popular meme these days, and the FTC is pursuing cases accordingly even if those cases are on very shaky ground.

View on HN

> maybe because there wasn't actually a good case to block the merger

One, we have evidence of gross incompetence. See my other comment [1]. (Also, contrast her with the DoJ.)

Two, then pick better cases. Khan has been a public green light to anticompetitive mergers across the economy because she's playing the role of a public partisan hack instead of a law enforcer.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38183459

That wasn't even the same case. Furthermore, it could be that Kahn didn't offer a good assessment of Facebook's market share because it wasn't actually that large - but she was pressured or directed to bring a case against Facebook anyway.

> wasn't even the same case

I was arguing that we have evidence she is grossly incompetent in general.

> she was pressured or directed to bring a case against Facebook anyway

The FTC is an independent agency [1]. If she was successfully pressured, she was acting incompetently (or even corruptly).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...

The FTC chair is appointed by the president. While the other commissioners are more independent, Kahn serves at the pleasure of the executive.

> Kahn serves at the pleasure of the executive

Sure, but it's still an independent agency. If she's being pressured, that's between incompetent and corrupt.

Not really? Let's recap the events:

* The president made promises on the campaign trail to take on "big tech".

* The president appoints an FTC chair with the stated goal of opening cases against "big tech", and said FTC chair affirms these promises when she takes office (you can look it up this is true).

* The FTC chair feels she's executing the mandate of the voters by taking on more ambitious (read: worse) cases against "big tech".

This looks a lot more like democracy working as intended, even if I disagree with it. I think Kahn is right to feel pressure to bring cases against "big tech" given that the president who appointed her promised this course of action, and also because she herself affirmed these promises when she took office.

The issue is that it would require legislation to deliver on these promises. Like it or not "tech company has too much influence" is not grounds for breaking up a company or blocking mergers. What Biden and Kahn promised to do is just fundamentally not what the law allows the FTC to do. Even a highly competent FTC chair would have failed to block Activision merging with Microsoft.

This isn't corruption or incompetence. It's a story of being given an impossible task.

> looks a lot more like democracy working as intended

It’s absolutely democracy. Khan is a populist appointment. She is also a handout to corporate interests.

A competent FTC would have extracted concessions instead of bombing, time and again, in court. That or pursued antitrust in the rest of the economy. Khan didn’t. I’m personally fine with that—I’ve made a lot of money on the ensuing M&A. But it’s surprising to see people still not seeing the wool pulled over their eyes on this one.

> Or maybe because there wasn't actually a good case to block the merger?

OK, then she shouldn't have taken the case and wasted time!!!! Exactly my point. I am confused as to how she got the job when she seems wildly out of her depth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com