Hacker News Reader

Comment by SpaceManNabs | Hacker News Reader

So I had no idea who she was and looked up her background....

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

How did she get that job? Who did she know? Was she set up to fail? What the actual hell is this?

I am incredibly disappointed in this corrupt bs. Like this can't be all just because she wrote that thesis on Amazon. No way that justifies her position.

I don't care about her ideological positions or wtv, but has she actually succeeded in any anti trust case? I have been rage clicking through her history, and while her academic record is impressive, I see nothing successful during her tenure at the ftc.

View on HN

> seems wildly inexperienced

The real what the fuck moment, for me, was when Khan did "not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook's market share at any point over the past ten years" [1].

That's the judge! In his opinion! How do you claim monopoly without bothering to calculate market share!

[1] https://casetext.com/case/fed-trade-commn-v-facebook-inc#p4

I have been rage researching her all day, and I can understand why sentiment within the FTC lawyers is so low right now lol. BS like this might actually turn me into a Republican because at least the federalist society puts up ideological morons that get the job done.

I’ll probably trigger some people by saying this, so I made a throwaway. It’s because she’s the best woman of color they could find who was remotely qualified for the job. The Biden admin has been preferentially appointing women of color across the board. Look at the demographics of their judge appointees, for instance[0]. I’m not saying this to be inflammatory. There’s crystal clear of evidence of preferential treatment.

For many “in the know” in this area, Khan has repeatedly made a fool out of herself, despite those who wish to push a glowing narrative. As many have already pointed out, she’s simply not that effective, and at some point you have to admit that even if you agree with what she’s trying to do (as many of us here do). One of the reasons here, which you mentioned, is the remarkably low staff morale at the FTC which she has caused[1].

Prejudice like this has been happening across the board under Biden, and the vast majority of the picks are, to say the least, underwhelming (Khan isn't really that bad relatively speaking.) Bottom line is: if you or anyone reading think this is crap, you need to get yourself (and others) politically active.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/09/biden-has... [1] see, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/13/ftc-lin...

How did she get that job?

She wrote a paper that provides a new legal basis for antitrust enforcement in the U.S. that allows for different theories from the currently prevailing "consumer harm" doctrine.

Who did she know?

Her paper on antitrust was a huge deal in the legal world. It would be more accurate to ask, "who knew her?" and the answer would be pretty much everybody in the legal community.

What the actual hell is this?

It was an attempt to block a merger. Which was slightly more successful than the last FTC action against Microsoft...which led to them unbundling IE for a few years. And that failure was back when the FTC was full of experienced lawyers coming off decades of actively pursuing antitrust cases.

Like I don't care about her ideological positions or wtv, but has she actually succeeded in any anti trust case? Cuz I have been rage clicking through her history, and while her academic record is impressive, I see nothing successful during her tenure at the ftc.

The FTC hasn't had a successful major antitrust case in decades...

> She wrote a paper that provides a new legal basis for antitrust enforcement in the U.S. that allows for different theories from the currently prevailing "consumer harm" doctrine.

That is my point. This is nearly purely all academic experience. No experience in managing such a large system like the FTC. How is she supposed to manage people?

> Her paper on antitrust was a huge deal in the legal world. It would be more accurate to ask, "who knew her?" and the answer would be pretty much everybody in the legal community.

From what I understand talking to Columbia Law school grads in anti trust, it was just riding a populist wave. I don't know too much so I will take your word for it.

> The FTC hasn't had a successful major antitrust case in decades...

No, but they have done deals, something Lina Khan said she should consider more when she was getting roasted at that congressional hearing.

On the other points: I don't know enough about this space to talk on the other points which is why I was asking those questions.

No, but they have done deals, something Lina Khan said she should consider more when she was getting roasted at that congressional hearing.

The FTC has continued doing deals the entire time. They're just not covered in the tech news because they don't affect tech.

Then why did she make that statement?

Because they could consider doing more deals than they already are...

I'm not sure why writing that paper would make her any more qualified. If she had actually demonstrated that her new arguments around antitrust actually held up in court, that would make her more qualified. But as far as I can tell, it was her willingness to pursue cases against "big tech" that got her picked not experience in actually pursuing cases.

If anything, the fact that her cases are failing left and right is casting a lot of doubt on the validity of her ideas on antitrust. The lesson is that a popular academic legal paper does not translate into success in real courts.

Her academic background is not at fault here.

The FTC hasn't had any success at antitrust the past several decades despite being led by experienced lawyers due to a judicial change in antitrust doctrine. There are plenty of people commenting on this thread that weren't even born the last time the FTC had a major antitrust victory.

> 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.

> 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.

I think it's interesting to say she is out of her depth? What would you prefer?

Someone with at least a decade of experience in non-academic law. Or at least 5....

I am all about academics. I think intelligentsia is undervalued in America. But not all skills in academia transfer to industry/gov, and you need new ones too that can only be built with experience. She is people's boss ffs. Would you want your boss in government to be someone that has never had a leadership position in government????

Or even just managing a team.

I'm honestly not sure. I think I would say if she was in the industry for too long she is tainted as well. I was anti Ajit Pai as well for example.

I don't know what's worse her having too little experience or too much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com