> I don't understand your point.
That the article's premise "the US forgot what antitrust is for" is skewed, because it ignores 'healthy' investigations into problems in the internet space, and uses an editorially inconsistent presentation of a mechanism of state vs federal influence to support its claims.
you are correct this is at an editorial level and not problematic in the article as (selectively) presented.
I'm thinking you're coming at this 'economically', and I'm coming at this 'politically'.
> At no point did either of those articles imply that we should use anti-trust laws against book publishers in response to the undue influence Texas has on the market.
No, but it certainly complains about the mechanism of one state's purchasing power / legislation having influence over national policy, while making this mechanism a 'noble cause' in the case of california cars by comparing it to civil rights activism.
As a mechanism, either states and businesses should have national influence, or they shouldn't - if we are speaking of government 'function', this mechanism is not selectively good depending on ones own political agenda. It is either a good tool for balancing local/federal powers, or it isn't.
If Texas is misbehaving by issuing crappy schoolbooks, then California is misbehaving by organizing automakers in such a way that they build cars nationally according to its own requirements, and vice versa. One or the other, depending on our view of the desirability of the overall 'mechanism'.
If we pick one case and not the other we are being partisan.
If we are highlighting one case to make this claim and not others (internet),
we are being partisan.
Which is exactly the complaint being levied against regulators here.
So, at base, this is really saying "running cartels and using antitrust to break them is fine for me but not for you", which is the real 'argument', and not nearly as compelling a supporting argument to make when ones article title is "The U.S. Forgot What Antitrust Is For", since we might just be doing it ourselves if we make that case.
Omitting ongoing tech investigations very conveniently avoids making this even more overt, and so, in my view, is suspect.
Again, this was (carefully, via sidestepping?) not done within the article,
but on publication level; and, Getting into the actual economic issues / externalities / etc. for this issue itself, I did not attempt do.