This is one of the shitiest headlines I have ever seen: it gives the impression the (acting) FTC chair holds the *exact opposite view* than she actually expresses in her speech.
Here's a relevant extract of the article that does a better job summarizing her view:
> A speech Tuesday by the acting chairperson of the Federal Trade Commission **pushes back, hard, against a growing clamor among those who fear Internet companies are getting too big**.
> Speaking at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., Maureen Ohlhausen said that the public must **ask itself whether unelected government bureaucrats are the best qualified to pick the winners and losers in high tech markets**.
> As Ohlhausen put it in her speech, **the fear is that** “we are spiraling towards a dystopian future where a few giant technology companies will ultimately gain sustained control over our economic lives.”
> Current U.S. antitrust regulations focus on consumer welfare. **Ohlhausen said technological platforms don't necessarily win simply because they had a big portion of the market at one time**.
> The litmus test, for her, is that **antitrust enforcement must turn on the specific facts on an individual case, with the focus of actual likely harm to consumers**. The goal, she said, is to "protect free and open markets for the benefit of consumers."
> **U.S. antitrust rules have come to focus solely on the potential damage to consumers, so if prices remain low, the damage to distributors and other middle-men, and the potential damage to the entire nation's commercial infrastructure, is not considered.**
> Ohlhausen ended her speech by saying that she was neither "a champion of today's leading Internet firms nor their foe."
> Rather, she, and the FTC, have "vigorously supported policy positions that they sometimes love and sometimes hate."
People should read the fracking article, and whoever wrote that headline is either incredibly incompetent or incredibly overworked.
Edit: The headline now reads "Internet companies too big? FTC chair says more than market share counts", which is a fair headline - now we just need Reddit to be able to edit headlines as well!
Some would say we're already there.
**Short history on Trade Monopolies in US**. The anti-Sherman trust act (1890) was made so as to be almost unenforceable. Loosely worded so as to discourage monopolies but keep the state from enforcing it in any applicable ways. In *United States v E.C Knight Company (1895)* the nail was put in the coffin when the government was rebuffed and the courts deemed an exchange of stock that gave the Knight company control of 95 percent of the sugar refining business not a trade.
In 1901 in order to corner the New England market James Jerome Hill (President of the Great Northern Railway) backed by J.P Morgan (President of Northern Pacific Railroad) started a buyout of the Chicago, Burlignton, and Quincy railroad which was countered by President of the Union and Southern Pacific Railroad-->Edward Henry Harriman. This 'stock war' threatened to cause a crash on the New York Stock Exchange but thankfully Harriman backed out and the duo won control. In order to prevent another 'stock war' James Hill and J.P Morgan put the three companies under the control of the Northern Securities Company--> a **holding company** that had voting control over all of the three of railroads. This is where it gets interesting. President McKinley personally didn't believe it a monopoly and didn't care. Yet he was assassinated not long after he took office and his VP took his place. President Roosevelt compared to his predecessor did see the Northern Securities company a monopoly and got his Justice department to go after it. Ultimately this was decided in *Northern Securities Company vs United States (1904)*. Interestingly enough the government was able to convince the court that an exchange of stock was indeed a trade reversing their decision from the *Knight Case (1895)*. This small change paved the way for progressivism to keep business accountable in the years following.
(Note: The anti Sherman trust act has since been hobbled again which is why we haven't seen a major prosecution since Enron)
[**Semantics let alone Technology can make a hell of a difference in regards to upholding laws.**](https://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/articles/389338006-From-RICO-to-analytics-How-technology-can-speed-up-gang-investigations/
Tech will save us from The Technology monopoly.
Edit: Interesting to note who led the Enron prosecution...
nothing about how ISPs are too big though...
My girlfriend and I always joke that it's going to get to the point where Amazon, Google, and Disney are fighting it out for who owns the world.
Some of the big tech heads have more logical sounding policies for the economy than actual politicians
Amazon has freaked me out for awhile now. Mostly because they don't do much other than make it possible to never leave your house.
You mean like the three credit bureaus? You know the ones that control what happens to everyone's lives' as far as mortgage, car loans, insurance, being able to buy a house, being able to rent an apartment, or get the right job? Those companies! Those three!
Edit: kammaz aund priods... N qustn markz
Antitrust suits incoming. And they richly deserve it.
As opposed to a few credit bureau, a few oil companies, a few banks and a few shopping outlets.