I'm going to miss Lina Khan. It is unfortunate that a government contractor with a dumb grudge is going to be allowed to decide her fate. As far as I can tell she's been doing great work over there.
Actually Matt Gaetz, who will likely be her boss, calls himself a "Khanservative" in support of her
But what does Donald want?
It doesn't matter at all what Matt Gaetz wants.
Most of the Trump-sphere's donations and organization came from Andressen (the A in A16Z), David Sacks (especially during his fundraiser last year that was a who's who of YC and VCs), and Thiel.
They are all in support of Lina Khan's position on anti-trust, as it aligns closely with the vision of LTSE (YC S17) plus their grudge/annoyance at the fact that late stage acquisitions don't benefit early stage investors as much as an IPO or SPAC, plus their annoyance at how early stage investors can't take advantage of the IPO "Pop".
This has been a major fissure in the tech industry for almost a decade at this point.
To be fair, Horowitz (the Z in A16Z) donated to Harris's campaign to lobby for the same thing as well.
Elon wants her gone:
Musk is just one donor among dozens.
One of the biggest donor yes, but not enough to move the needle.
Also, the presidency is not enough to move the needle - you need down ballot support from both houses of Congress as well, which is a relationship Musk did not build unlike other donors.
One donor, thanked at length by name in the president's acceptance speech, and immediately appointed over a brand new office about "efficiency" after yelling incessantly about deleting entire government departments.
Elon has a huge amount of influence over khan's future and the ftc's ability to continue in its recent push to actually protect the American consumers.
> brand new office
DOGE is a presidential task force. They are impotent like any other task force.
If you want something to worry about with the new administration, worry about the shitshow that Senate confirmation will be for much of 2025 as Senate Leadership and the Executive will clash
> the ftc's ability
The Khan style vision of antitrust (which I strongly oppose as well btw) will continue under Trump as it did under Biden.
It has bipartisan support because of bipartisan donor relations.
Oren Cass, Lina Khan, Matt Stoller, and Rohit Chopra are all cut from the same cloth.
> worry about the shitshow that Senate confirmation will be for much of 2025 as Senate Leadership and the Executive will clash
Can they just get people on the Acting title and not worry about senate confirmation?
> Can they just get people on the Acting title and not worry about senate confirmation?
No.
The people who get "Acting" titles only have a lifespan of a couple months AND they need to be existing members of the bureaucracy who are 1 level below the senate appointed role.
The US is not a parliamentary system like India, UK, Canada, or Australia where the executive has power over cabinet nomination.
The US's system was explicitly built so that the president is hemmed in this manner.
”To move the needle” usually means to have a measurable/noticeable effect. It feels a bit weird to say that the presidency of the United States doesn’t have any effect on who the chair of the FTC is
> It feels a bit weird to say that the presidency of the United States doesn’t have any effect on who the chair of the FTC is
Because it requires Senate confirmation.
The US has one of the weakest presidencies globally for that reason.
Other than foreign policy, presidents are largely hemmed by that fact.
> which is a relationship Musk did not build unlike other donors.
How do you know that?
> late stage acquisitions don't benefit early stage investors as much as an IPO or SPAC
I've heard this repeated multiple times, but I wonder how the FTC's policies can influence this?
> how early stage investors can't take advantage of the IPO "Pop".
Could you explain this? By IPO pop do you mean the difference between what the bank underwrites and what the initial . By early vs late stage investors do you mean seed vs series G, or pre-IPO vs post-IPO? I've thought that seed vs series G investors get the same class of stock? Or is there some restriction encoded into the paperwork associated with the investment?
> how the FTC's policies can influence this
By de-incentivizing M&A, and checking larger competitors to VC darlings by hanging the Damcoles sword of antitrust.
A decade ago Marc Andressen was lobbying Obama to work on this [0][1]
In Andressen's and much of his peer's eyes, most mid-late stage startups should be IPOing sooner than they actually are. And to a certain extent he isn't wrong.
Personally, I don't buy Andressen's argument - there is a reason we added added checks and balances in the IPO process.
> Could you explain this
To go public (just like any other fundraising stage), early stage ownership stakes tend to be diluted in order to attract later investors.
IPOs are a fundraising technique like any other, but the benefits tends to bias towards funds that target late stage or roadshow investors at the expense of early investors.
In the eyes of Andressen and his peers the IPO process needs to be simplified in order to make it easier for mid-stage startups to go public AND the incentive structures need to be changed so early stage investors (read VCs like A16Z) get outsized benefit.
For most funds, this really doesn't matter, but for the mega funds like A16Z, YC, Founders Fund, etc this is a make-or-break policy as most of their portfolio are mid-late stage startups that have been pushing off IPOs because they are too small for the current market, and taking acquisitions at what a number of early stage investors view as a suboptimal price - doesn't matter to the founder because they have cash, but it does to large early stage investors.
A direct listing or SPAC would be the ideal "IPO" method envisioned, but that has been cracked down on as well (and rightfully so tbh)
[0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2013/07/11/andreessen-talks-tech-boom-b...
[1] - https://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5837638/the-ipo-is-dying-marc-...
Thank you! This is very informative.
Do you have any references for Thiel supporting Lina Khan's position on antitrust? Thiel does not appear to love Google and sees them as somewhat of a formidable opposing force, and that sometimes shows, so I can see he would enjoy his popcorn when Google is attacked by FTC, but it does not appear he would be aligned with Khan in principle.
It's 'interesting' that the best way to to deduce a candidates policy in a topic is to map out what the billionaires paying them wants.
Donald has mentioned many time the tech monopolies and the power they possess
She will be gone for symbolism if nothing else. Some of the policies attacking big tech (read: Google) may remain, but hardline acquisition ban will get relaxed for sure.
Maybe we should also cling to hope because JD said some nice things about her too but let's be real: the billionaires want her gone. Elon has already tweeted that she will be fired. There's no way she will be able to stay on.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Matt Gaetz definitely had sex with a 17 year old girl, and his friend who did the same got 11 years in prison for it.
So why didn't Gaetz get charged?
of course he did it
looks just like evil Billy Graham
print it!
[flagged]
It was more than a "lack of action" by the DOJ, they full on cleared him of any wrongdoing.
You really should check your facts on that first statement my friend. Frankly you are dead wrong and should not be spreading this kind of false info, it’s dangerous to minors. Only 24 states have age of consent below 18, and a number of those have restrictions on age gaps between participants. And of those 24 states that don’t come close to covering “the majority” of the population of the United States.
They were two states off from being factually correct with their "majority" comment. Barely an exaggeration and far from warranting your overreaction.
As I said this is close to a majority of states by count, but far from a majority by population. Read better. I guess you don’t think we should be mindful of false information about sex with minors being written as fact on the Internet and should go uncorrected. Check! Me, I don’t feel that way, I’ll correct it.
Okay. I relied on this wikipedia entry. [0]
Which states "As of April 2021, of the total fifty U.S. states, approximately thirty have an age of consent of 16 (with this being the most common age of consent in the country), a handful set the age of consent at 17, and in about eleven states the age is 18."
Which clearly seems like a majority to me.
I think you're confusing "Unrestricted" with "Restricted by Authority." You'll note that the "Restricted by Authority" age is often younger than the "Unrestricted" age. Which accounts for our different tallies. [1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_North_Americ...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_S...
Bringing receipts. Well done. Hope they learn something.
I’m not confused. Thank you though.
Blocking the sale of spirit airlines which resulted in its bankruptcy. Claiming that the sale of the Roomba makers would lead to a monopoly. Where is the ‘great’ you speak of?
Bankruptcy is a part of law for a reason. They can choose to restructure or to sell off. This is healthy turnover.
And how you are disadvantaged by two robot vacuum cleaner manufacturers not merging? Would you feel differently if you worked for one of them?
You've cherry picked two examples. This is mud slinging and not genuine analysis.
> They can choose to restructure or to sell off
I'm not familiar, but isn't the parent comment saying the sale was blocked?
A specific sale was blocked on antitrust grounds. The proposed sale to Frontier would likely not have been, but the shareholders blocked it. A sale to, like, something other than an airline would certainly not be blocked.
they can be bought by another company, other investors, for a different price.
Being completely lax against shady companies from China for unknown reasons:
https://nbcmontana.com/amp/news/nation-world/calls-federal-i...
How is this being lax? Seems like someone just raised concerns about it this year. The complaints in this amount to "please stop going at our guys and go at the people who are beating our guys."
Let's not forget that Rosenworcel is also likely to be replaced by a sock Paipet. She has also been doing great work at the FCC.
FCC great work including what results?
Spam via SMS and calls hasn’t been conquered at all and it’s 18 years since the “donotcall” registry went live.
I don't get robocalls anymore.
At least two a day on landline, starting right at 8am, and at least five or six a day on my cell.
Have any of you reported the calls [1]? They can't do anything about something they know nothing about, and they have taken extremely aggressive action in the past [2].
[1]: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-robocalls...
[2]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395670A1.pdf
It was supposed to be automatic! Shaker and stirred or whatever.
I'm not sure how anyone could expect a telecom protocol to automatically determine if a call is a robocall. Those merely prevent spoofing and allow the FCC to track town offenders.
How are you supposed to know if they are robocalls? I stopped answering my phone, but when I used to, it was always a person with a heavy accent trying to sell something.
> person with a heavy accent
Nice...
Either way, a human is not a robot. Ignoring the do not call list would be up to the FTC to police. https://www.donotcall.gov/report.html
A personal trick of mine was to answer those calls, ask them to hold, and leave them waiting indefinitely. I started a leaderboard with my friends back in the day, and the winner was ~40min.
yeah, and it doesn't help anything in 18 years of experience.
I do, every day.
Then you are unique
I will follow the remainder of her career with great interest.
She was cooked either way. Kamala's financiers were also demanding she fire Lina.
There was a fighting chance with Kamala though as the progressive wing of the party (AOC, Bernie etc.) were gearing up to raise holy hell to protect Kahn.
Maybe she’s a real obstacle and we should aim to put her back there at some point in the future.
Thank f** she's going soon.
No, I don't mind her going after anti-trust targets. I do mind her agency doing this in the final days of this presidency. This is all for brownie points and nothing else. Nadella will have a nice sit-down with Trump and this investigation will fly to the winds.
> final days of this presidency
She started the job in the middle of 2021 and in 2022 the FTC blocked Nvidia/ARM merger and sued Facebook, Twitter, and Frontier Communications. This information isn't hard to find.
Yeah, and somehow her work was super selective?
Meanwhile Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard and made OpenAI its "marketing bitch" (as Musk puts it). Somehow Microsoft always escaped the chains.
They sued to stop that acquisition and lost the case while Microsoft was forced to make concessions elsewhere. Given that the acquisition was cleared in several countries I don't think you can lay the blame at the FTC's feet.
I recently tried to delete my Microsoft account. The system wouldn't let me (it gave me a popup saying "known issues exist"). I spent a long time trying to figure out how to contact Microsoft until I just emailed the data controller saying I want to delete my account. We went back and forth with support for a month until it got escalated to executive support. They closed it saying they can't help me and I need to open a new ticket with 365 commercial support. I gave up.
Just find random Microsoft executives off LinkedIn, figure out their work email, and cc them on the conversation. I would search for anyone in 'privacy' and related keywords. One of them will see your email, mysteriously escalate it internally, and it'll be done. I say this as someone who has done this sort of thing multiple times now. It's always easier for the company to comply with the crazy person who's willing to directly email executives.
If they don't initially respond, just keep cc'ing them and politely sending emails 'hello, I'm just looking to follow up on this so that I don't have to escalate'. I promise you that this works
These emails will be flagged and likely auto-deleted before they hit the inbox. Many people, myself included, set up a filter to flag or delete anything that’s not from an @microsoft email. It’s easy to grant an @microsot address to any vendors you’re working with so there’s almost no reason to talk to outsiders that haven’t been vetted, and there’s a constant stream of phishing as well.
Execs talk to customers all the time and so wouldn’t auto delete emails tagged external.
Not true at any company or university lab I have worked at recently. Particularly research labs and professors have switched to just accepting academic emails recently which I somewhat oppose personally.
That sounds counterproductive towards creating the better world you are hoping to create. If you're going to use channels of communication that will be shut down after only a few uses that are contrary to the recipients' interests, they should be saved for issues of real rather than symbolic substance.
It does matter whether or not corporations let people easily delete their profiles and accounts, but that won't be solved by a small number of savvy people getting exceptions without actually convincing anyone that the greater principle is important. It will be solved either through regulations, or through convincing the vast majority of users that failing to fulfill this duty irrevocably damages that company's reputation. Regulators this year are just barely on the side of protecting consumers, and next year they will likely begin dismantling many of these requirements. When it comes to actual consumers, I bet barely 10% of people think it is important, and if they do they are convinced it is an inevitability, rather than the type of product defect that justifies them not using a service or product.
In the case of Microsoft, becoming an absurd squeaky wheel seems like a personally risky thing to do. Certainly such messages could be interpreted as violating some portion of LinkedIn's professional community policies. The parent organization of LinkedIn, which is of course Microsoft, could decide when those policies need to be more strictly enforced.
> I gave up.
That is the idea, yes.
Guessing you're not in the EU?
Does "littering is bad" really need to apply to megacrops' databases?
Your Microsoft account doubles as your advertising profile, so you can see how they wouldn't want to delete it now that they have embraced the surveillance capitalism business model.
Now that you have embraced the surveillance capitalism business model
Microsoft’s bundling of different distinct products across azure, office, and many other brands needs to be investigated and shut down. And all the dark patterns like nudging users to import all their tabs into edge or whatever.
AFAIK, Edge by default import these and even cookies from other browser. You have to explicitly opt out of this.
ive always thought their offering was basically "three rich guys in a trenchcoat." customers include MS Office, XBox, and every corporation strong-armed into accepting cloud credits in order to continue receiving discounted licenses on desktops.
Welp.. not for long, till January :(
It felt like we were making actual progress in dismantling the cancer that is big tech right now
Look at what Trump says about Big Tech, and how the latter's CEOs reacted so obsequiously to his victory --- they are scared to get on the wrong side of him.
What or who is the source for this?
Also, since when did Ars syndicate the Financial Times?
https://www.ft.com/content/62f361eb-ce52-47c1-9857-878cfe298...
Since February 2020
"making its Office 365 products incompatible with rival clouds"
This whole thing sounds lame and feeble. I predict a thorough roasting in discovery that would prevent most of this from seeing a courtroom. It's difficult roasting your biggest customer, but Microsoft has done it before.
AWS announced a year ago they have Microsoft 365 for virtual desktops. Is it Oracle cloud that is incompatible? Ali?
About time. But Microsoft is too clever to lose this.
FTC has been on a losing streak against tech companies so while this is likely to be the same because the courts aren't exactly aligned with the FTC's interpretation of anticompetitive practices I can respect doing it anyway.
There's some research showing that even failed attempts by regulators act as a cooling factor for misbehavior, which makes some intuitive sense.
It mentions exit fees, which seems to be referring to the obvious candidate of network egress. But:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/bandwidth/ > Azure offers free egress for customers leaving Azure when taking their data out of the Azure infrastructure via the internet to switch to another cloud provider or an on-premises data center.
... So is that FAQ entry a recent change, or is the ftc claiming that there's actually some other charge, or...?
Hasn't this been added after the EU Data Act requirement?
> Tactics being examined include substantially increasing subscription fees for those that leave, charging steep exit fees, and allegedly making its Office 365 products incompatible with rival clouds, they added.
Why are there no details or examples? Is Ars this bad recently?
I feel like an example would just restate the sentence. “Company name tried to move but the migration was manual and there were fees of $X”.
What details do you want? Im not shocked to hear Microsoft acting a little poorly.
> there were fees of $X
What kind of fees?