FTC Chair Lina Khan 联邦贸易委员会主席莉娜·汗

四角池

FTC 和金主大公司的对抗， Hoffman要求哈里斯罢免， 有点赤裸裸的买票了。。。
Lina Khan

巴基斯坦裔
耶鲁博士论文 ， 挑战大公司，亚马逊垄断悖论
34岁被任命为ftc主席，据说是故意的， 反正拜登认为她什么事也办不成， 还可以赢得好名声
被认为拜登政府里面不能被收买过的人
对抗大公司的案子律师寡不敌众基本全部收掉
硅谷公司金主很恼火，无论哪个人上台都要求她下台
据说是伊丽莎白warren的人

Billionaire donors are pressuring Kamala Harris to fire Lina Khan, whose term as FTC chair has seen aggressive antitrust actions against tech giants. David Sirota interviewed Khan about her anti-monopoly agenda and the corporate efforts to shut it down.
亿万富翁捐助者正在向卡玛拉·哈里斯施压，要求其解雇莉娜·汗(Lina Khan)，在莉娜·汗担任联邦贸易委员会主席期间，针对科技巨头采取了严厉的反垄断行动。大卫·西罗塔 (David Sirota) 采访了汗，了解她的反垄断议程以及企业为关闭该议程所做的努力。
Wednesday, billionaire tech tycoon and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman called on Vice President Kamala Harris, if she becomes president, to oust Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan, who’s taken an aggressive approach to enforcing antitrust laws — and is currently scrutinizing a merger involving two of Hoffman’s companies. On Friday, another media tycoon called Khan “a dope.” Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Harris herself has remained silent on the issue.
周三，亿万富翁科技大亨、民主党捐助者里德·霍夫曼 (Reid Hoffman)呼吁副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris) 如果她当选总统，就罢免联邦贸易委员会 (FTC) 主席莉娜·汗 (Lina Khan)，后者在执行反垄断法方面采取了积极的态度，目前正在审查一项涉及霍夫曼两家公司的合并。周五，另一位媒体大亨称汗为“笨蛋”。与此同时，民主党总统候选人哈里斯本人在这个问题上保持沉默。

What does Khan think about all this? And what would an administrative shake-up — by way of former president Donald Trump’s reelection or Harris’s potential staffing changes — mean for antitrust enforcement, consumer protection, and monopoly power in the United States? David Sirota spoke with Khan to learn her thoughts.
可汗对这一切有何看法？前总统唐纳德·特朗普的连任或哈里斯潜在的人事变动所带来的行政重组对美国的反垄断执法、消费者保护和垄断权力意味着什么？大卫·西罗塔（David Sirota）与汗交谈，了解她的想法。

DAVID SIROTA  大卫·西罗塔
What are things that you haven’t been able to do yet that you want to do?
有哪些事情是你还没有做到但你想做的？

LINA KHAN  丽娜·汗
We have a whole set of work underway that we need to see through. We proposed a rule to ban junk fees that we got sixty thousand comments on. We’re reviewing those, and we’ll look to see how we can finalize that.
我们正在进行一整套工作，需要进行到底。我们提出了一项禁止垃圾费的规则，我们收到了六万条评论。我们正在审查这些内容，并将研究如何最终确定这一点。

We proposed a rule that would require that companies make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one. We’ve seen all of these companies do these subscription traps where you can sign up with one click — and then to cancel, you have to phone somebody, but nobody ever picks up so you have to send an email. And that really adds up for people, right? Hundreds of dollars a month stuck in subscriptions they want to escape.
我们提出了一项规则，要求公司让取消订阅与注册订阅一样容易。我们已经看到所有这些公司都在做这些订阅陷阱，你可以一键注册 - 然后要取消，你必须打电话给某人，但没有人接听，所以你必须发送一封电子邮件。这对人们来说真的很重要，对吧？每月数百美元被困在他们想要逃离的订阅中。

We have proposed and we have finalized a rule to ban noncompete clauses that’s now being litigated, and we’re going to see that litigation through because we think it’s critical that American workers have freedom and are not trapped in jobs through these coercive contracts.
我们已经提出并最终确定了一项规则，禁止现在正在提起诉讼的竞业禁止条款，我们将看到该诉讼通过，因为我们认为美国工人拥有自由并且不因这些强制性合同而被困在工作中至关重要。

So that’s just some of the work on the rulemaking front. We have a whole bunch of cases underway right now against Amazon for illegal monopolization and against this firm for doing an illegal roll-up of anesthesiology practices in Texas.
这只是规则制定方面的一些工作。我们现在正在审理大量针对亚马逊非法垄断以及针对这家公司在德克萨斯州非法汇总麻醉业务的案件。

We’ve shared publicly that we’re scrutinizing pharmacy benefit managers; we worry they may be inflating drug costs for Americans and squeezing independent pharmacies. So that’s all work underway that we’re excited to see through.
我们已经公开表示，我们正在审查药品福利管理者；我们担心他们可能会抬高美国人的药品成本并挤压独立药店。这就是我们很高兴看到正在进行的所有工作。

DAVID SIROTA  大卫·西罗塔
How much of that work can be unwound if the administration changes? We’ve been trying to talk about the stakes of all that.
如果政府发生变化，可以减少多少工作？我们一直在尝试讨论这一切的利害关系。

LINA KHAN  丽娜·汗
So once the rulemakings are final, you have to go through a process if you actually want to undo it that can be challenged in court as well. Cases, in theory, could be yanked from the courts. But historically, cases have continued across administrations. Of course, if somebody comes in wanting to tear it all down and undo all the protections we’ve gotten for working people, there are ways to do that.
因此，一旦规则制定最终确定，如果你真的想撤销它，你就必须经历一个过程，这个过程也可以在法庭上受到质疑。从理论上讲，案件可以从法院撤回。但从历史上看，案件在历届政府中不断发生。当然，如果有人想要摧毁这一切并取消我们为劳动人民提供的所有保护，有一些方法可以做到这一点。

DAVID SIROTA  大卫·西罗塔
What do you make of the Reid Hoffman comment about how you’ve got to go in the next administration?
你如何看待里德霍夫曼关于你必须如何进入下一届政府的评论？

LINA KHAN  丽娜·汗
I mean, look, the FTC is focused on delivering for working people and standing up for them against corporate abuse. We think that’s good for our country, that’s good for our economy. And it makes sure people feel free rather than bullied in the marketplace. So I think that’s work that everybody should be able to get behind. Unless you’re one of the monopolies or abusive corporations.
我的意思是，你看，联邦贸易委员会专注于为劳动人民提供服务，并支持他们反对企业滥用权力。我们认为这对我们的国家有利，对我们的经济有利。它确保人们在市场上感到自由而不是受到欺凌。所以我认为这是每个人都应该能够支持的工作。除非你是垄断企业或滥用权力的公司之一。

DAVID SIROTA  大卫·西罗塔
J. D. Vance has said nice things about you — do you think the election is necessarily a pivot point for the FTC? Or in the sense of the old paradigm, if the Republicans get in, will they just sort of not want to do anything? Has that changed in your mind?
JD Vance 对你说了好话——你认为这次选举一定是 FTC 的转折点吗？或者从旧范式的意义上来说，如果共和党加入，他们会不会不想做任何事？你的想法有改变吗？

LINA KHAN  丽娜·汗
There’s no doubt that there is deep bipartisan agreement that when you allow illegal monopolies to run amok, that hurts working people. And if you want to protect working people from corporate abuse, you need to have an aggressive and assertive FTC.
毫无疑问，两党之间存在着深刻的共识，即当你允许非法垄断行为猖獗时，就会伤害劳动人民。如果你想保护劳动人民免受公司虐待，你需要有一个积极和自信的联邦贸易委员会。

You know, I’ve had the privilege of testifying before Congress a few times. And each time, I’m just struck by how there is deep bipartisan concern about how unfair methods of competition and these coercive practices can really hurt people. It means that they’re paying more, earning less, entrepreneurs have less of an opportunity to compete on a level playing field, and our economy and democracy are weaker because of that. So we’re just focused on continuing our work.
你知道，我有幸多次在国会作证。每一次，我都对两党对不公平竞争方法和这些强制性做法如何真正伤害人们的深深担忧感到震惊。这意味着他们付出更多，收入更少，企业家在公平竞争环境中竞争的机会更少，我们的经济和民主也因此变得更加脆弱。所以我们只专注于继续我们的工作。

DAVID SIROTA  大卫·西罗塔
One last quick question. Are you ever surprised or did you always expect to get the pushback?
最后一个快速问题。您是否曾感到惊讶，或者您一直预期会受到阻力？

LINA KHAN  丽娜·汗
Look, the FTC has embedded within it a mandate to fight illegal monopolies. We’ve long known that monopolies not only have economic power, but use that power to buy political power. That was one of the reasons that the lawmakers passed the antitrust laws and our founders were deeply concerned that unlawful economic power can corrupt not just our economy, but also our democracy.
看，联邦贸易委员会已将打击非法垄断的任务纳入其中。我们早就知道垄断不仅拥有经济权力，而且还利用这种权力购买政治权力。这是立法者通过反垄断法的原因之一，我们的创始人深切担心非法经济权力不仅会腐蚀我们的经济，还会腐蚀我们的民主。

And so embedded within the FTC’s DNA is when it’s doing its job standing up for consumers, workers, and small businesses against corporate abuse, that’s going to trigger pushback.
因此，当联邦贸易委员会在履行其职责，维护消费者、工人和小企业反对企业滥用权力时，就会引发阻力。

DAVID SIROTA  大卫·西罗塔
Thanks so much. 非常感谢。

LINA KHAN  丽娜·汗
Thank you. Thanks for all your great work. Really appreciate it.
谢谢。感谢您所做的一切出色工作。真的很感激。

四角池

This billionaire Democrat’s brazen suggestion puts Kamala Harris in a lose-lose situation
这位民主党亿万富翁的厚颜无耻的建议让卡马拉·哈里斯陷入了双输的境地

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/ms ... ina-khan-rcna163897

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman has a request for Vice President Kamala Harris, should she become president: replace Lina Khan as head of the Federal Trade Commission. Khan is “waging war on American business,” he told CNN last week. Hoffman, to be clear, is not just another man with an opinion. The billionaire and political megadonor donated $10 million to the Biden-Harris campaign, pushed his peers to do the same and is planning on a major fundraising push in Silicon Valley for Harris. And his public demand to oust Khan is the latest sign America’s billionaires need to be reminded that government policy shouldn’t be dictated by those with the largest checkbook.  
LinkedIn 创始人里德·霍夫曼 (Reid Hoffman) 向副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris)提出请求，如果她成为总统的话：取代莉娜·汗 (Lina Khan)担任联邦贸易委员会主席。汗上周告诉美国有线电视新闻网，他正在“向美国企业发动战争”。需要明确的是，霍夫曼不仅仅是一个有观点的人。这位亿万富翁和政治巨额捐助者向拜登-哈里斯竞选团队捐赠了 1000 万美元，并敦促他的同僚也这样做，并计划在硅谷为哈里斯进行大规模筹款活动。他公开要求推翻汗，这是需要提醒美国亿万富翁的最新迹象，即政府政策不应该由那些拥有最多支票的人来决定。

The Biden administration has been the most pro-worker and pro-consumer presidential administration in decades. That charge has been led, in part, by Khan. In her tenure as FTC chair, Khan has spearheaded efforts to block mergers that could result in monopolies in sectors ranging from big tech to grocery stores, and she has stood up for worker rights by moving to ban widely reviled noncompete agreements. It’s no surprise then that after Hoffman made his demand, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the Service Employees International Union came to Khan’s defense.
拜登政府是几十年来最支持工人和消费者的总统政府。这项指控在一定程度上是由汗领导的。在担任联邦贸易委员会主席期间，汗带头努力阻止可能导致从大型科技到杂货店等行业垄断的合并，她还通过禁止广受诟病的非竞争协议来维护工人权利。毫不奇怪，在霍夫曼提出要求后，参议员伯尼·桑德斯、伊丽莎白·沃伦以及服务业雇员国际工会纷纷为汗辩护。

Khan’s pro-consumer, pro-worker, anti-monopoly agenda has attracted no small amount of hate from powerful and monied interests.
汗的支持消费者、支持工人、反垄断的议程引起了强大和金钱利益集团的不小的仇恨。

This is a very democratic — with a small d — agenda. It is about freedom — the freedom to start a business and not worry about anti-competitive practices from deep-pocketed rivals, the freedom from unaccountable businesses that have no market incentives to worry about the needs and rights of their customers, and the freedom for workers to move jobs as they wish.
这是一个非常民主的议程，议程规模很小。它关乎自由——开办企业的自由，不用担心财力雄厚的竞争对手的反竞争行为，不受不负责任的企业的自由，这些企业没有市场激励来担心客户的需求和权利，以及自由工人可以按照自己的意愿转移工作。

It also happens to be a popular agenda — that is, with everyone but the most powerful. Khan’s pro-consumer, pro-worker, anti-monopoly agenda has attracted no small amount of hate from powerful and monied interests. Since Khan became FTC chair just over three years ago, the Wall Street Journal opinion page has printed more than 100 opinion pieces ranting about her record — an average of one screed every 11 days. Billionaires regularly take to CNBC to complain about her record; on Monday, media mogul Barry Diller referred to her as “a dope” and said that, if Harris wins, he would lobby her for Khan’s removal.
这也恰好是一个受欢迎的议程——也就是说，除了最有权势的人之外，每个人都参与其中。汗的支持消费者、支持工人、反垄断的议程引起了强大和金钱利益集团的不小的仇恨。自从三年多前 Khan 就任 FTC 主席以来，《华尔街日报》的评论版已经发表了100 多篇批评她记录的评论文章——平均每 11 天一篇长文。亿万富翁经常在 CNBC 上抱怨她的记录；周一，媒体大亨巴里·迪勒称她为“笨蛋”，并表示，如果哈里斯获胜，他将游说她罢免汗。

These plutocrats are speaking up, in part, because Harris’ opinions on Khan are largely unknown. But their opening and influence would be much less if it wasn’t for our campaign financing system, which privileges access to money over the power of the ballot box. A study by Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Benjamin Page at Northwestern University confirmed that government action is much more likely to reflect the wants and sentiments of wealthy Americans and corporate interests than actual majority sentiment.
这些富豪们之所以大声疾呼，部分原因是哈里斯对汗的看法基本上不为人所知。但如果没有我们的竞选融资系统，他们的开放性和影响力将会小得多，因为我们的竞选融资系统优先考虑获得资金而不是投票箱的权力。普林斯顿大学的马丁·吉伦斯和西北大学的本杰明·佩奇进行的一项研究证实，政府行动更有可能反映富裕美国人和企业利益的需求和情绪，而不是实际的大多数情绪。

0 seconds of 10 minutes, 8 secondsVolume 79.06565210157662%
10分钟0秒，8秒音量79.06565210157662%


Kamala Harris campaign focuses in on battleground states as Governors Shapiro and Whitmer host rally
卡马拉·哈里斯竞选活动重点关注战场州，州长夏皮罗和惠特默主持集会
10:08
Americans hate this reality. It’s a large part of why former President Donald Trump was able to ride “drain the swamp” to the White House in 2016. But it’s also a part of the reason he got tossed in 2020. Instead of draining the swamp, he appointed the wealthiest Cabinet in American history and opened up the spigots for those who sought to influence his administration.
美国人讨厌这个现实。这是前总统唐纳德·特朗普能够在 2016 年“排干沼泽”入主白宫的很大一部分原因。但这也是他在 2020 年被抛弃的部分原因。他没有排干沼泽，而是任命了最富有的人美国历史上的内阁，并为那些试图影响他的政府的人打开了水龙头。

But the power of the corporate purse also helps explain why Democrats quickly embraced any business leader who spoke up and took on Trump. Seeking allies against Trump, it was a natural next step to elevate prominent business leaders who said they didn’t support his administration or re-election. Anti-Trump forces even celebrated Elon Musk when he resigned from a Trump business advisory council after the former president walked away from the Paris climate accords. As we know, Musk soon resumed his right-ward trajectory. Others who were quick to condemn Trump in the wake of Jan. 6, have also made their way back to supporting the former president, seemingly because he’s promising tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks.
但企业财力的力量也有助于解释为什么民主党人会迅速接受任何敢于直言不讳并与特朗普较量的商界领袖。为了寻求反对特朗普的盟友，下一步自然会提拔那些表示不支持特朗普政府或连任的知名商界领袖。反特朗普势力甚至庆祝埃隆·马斯克在这位前总统退出巴黎气候协议后辞去了特朗普商业顾问委员会的职务。众所周知，马斯克很快又恢复了右倾轨道。 1 月 6 日之后迅速谴责特朗普的其他人也重新开始支持这位前总统，似乎是因为他承诺减税和放松监管。

Money talks in both our culture and, the more money, the louder the voice. Take, for example, how voter concerns about Biden’s advanced age were largely ignored — until, that is, his shocking June debate performance led donors who had previously backed Biden’s re-election effort to shut their wallets.
在我们的文化中，钱是万能的，而且钱越多，声音就越大。举例来说，选民对拜登年事已高的担忧在很大程度上被忽视了——直到他在六月辩论中令人震惊的表现导致之前支持拜登连任努力的捐助者关上了钱包。

... the real issue is that the legalized corruption that is the U.S. campaign financing system is hardly a way to run an effective and democratic government.
......真正的问题是，美国竞选融资体系中的合法化腐败很难成为有效和民主政府的管理方式。

As for Trump, he barely mentions “drain the swamp” these days. He instead is campaigning on a grab bag of grievances, even as he privately visits major donors, tin cup in one hand and a for-sale sign in the other. Earlier this year, according to The Washington Post, he all but promised to do away with a laundry list of policies and regulations reviled by the fossil fuel companies if, in turn, their executives raised $1 billion for his campaign.
至于特朗普，这些天他几乎没有提到“排干沼泽”。相反，尽管他私下拜访主要捐助者，一手拿着锡杯，另一只手拿着待售牌子，但他却在以一袋冤屈来竞选。据《华盛顿邮报》报道，今年早些时候，他几乎承诺废除一系列受到化石燃料公司谩骂的政策和法规，如果这些公司的高管反过来为他的竞选筹集 10 亿美元的话。

More from MSNBC Daily 更多来自微软全国广播公司日报
Must reads from Today's list
必须从今天的清单中阅读


G.O.A.T. 山羊
Simone Biles just proved she's so much bigger than her sport
西蒙·拜尔斯 (Simone Biles) 刚刚证明了她比她的运动更伟大
Will Leitch 威尔·雷奇

VULNERABILITY IS POWER 脆弱就是力量
Why Wayne Brady's 'The Family Remix' may not be like the reality TV you've seen before
为什么韦恩·布雷迪的“家庭混音”可能不像您以前看过的真人秀
Noor Noman 努尔·诺曼
All this explains why the wealthiest Americans are increasingly used to getting their way no matter what party is in charge — and why they are so quick to get offended when thwarted.  
所有这些都解释了为什么最富有的美国人越来越习惯于随心所欲，无论哪个政党掌权，以及为什么他们在受到挫败时很快就会感到被冒犯。

Hoffman’s got other beefs too — he’s also made it known he would like to see tariffs imposed under both Trump and Biden rolled back. Taken together, this brazenness leaves Harris in a terrible position. While she should keep Khan on, if she wins and decides, for whatever reason, to replace the current FTC chair, it will look like she is doing the bidding of billionaires. Calls for Harris to return Hoffman’s money, on the other hand, don’t solve the underlying problem either. Not only would it be hard to know what to give back, but Hoffman's case raises contributions from many other donors.
霍夫曼还有其他的不满——他还表示希望看到特朗普和拜登都取消征收的关税。总而言之，这种厚颜无耻让哈里斯陷入了可怕的境地。虽然她应该让汗继续留任，但如果她获胜并决定，无论出于何种原因，取代现任联邦贸易委员会主席，那么看起来她是在听从亿万富翁的命令。另一方面，要求哈里斯归还霍夫曼的钱也不能解决根本问题。不仅很难知道该回馈什么，而且霍夫曼的案例还筹集了许多其他捐助者的捐款。

And the real issue is that the legalized corruption that is the U.S. campaign financing system is hardly a way to run an effective and democratic government. Until that changes, nothing else will.
真正的问题是，美国竞选融资体系中的合法化腐败很难成为有效、民主政府的管理方式。在这种情况发生改变之前，其他一切都不会改变。

四角池

FTC Chair Lina Khan on Antitrust in the age of Amazon
联邦贸易委员会主席莉娜·汗谈亚马逊时代的反垄断

When Lina Khan was in law school back in 2017, she wrote a law review article called 'Amazon's Antitrust Paradox,' that went kinda viral in policy circles. In it, she argued that antitrust enforcement in the U.S. was behind the times. For decades, regulators had focused narrowly on consumer welfare, and they'd bring companies to court only when they thought consumers were being harmed by things like rising prices. But in the age of digital platforms like Amazon and Facebook, Khan argued in the article, the time had come for a more proactive approach to antitrust.
2017 年，莉娜·汗 (Lina Khan) 在法学院读书时，写了一篇名为“亚马逊的反垄断悖论”的法律评论文章，这篇文章在政策圈子里疯传。她在文中指出，美国的反垄断执法已经落后于时代。几十年来，监管机构一直狭隘地关注消费者福利，只有当他们认为消费者因价格上涨等问题而受到伤害时，他们才会将公司告上法庭。但汗在文章中指出，在亚马逊和 Facebook 等数字平台时代，采取更积极主动的反垄断方式的时机已经到来。

Just four years later, President Biden appointed Lina Khan to be the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, one of the main government agencies responsible for enforcing antitrust in America, putting her in the rare position of putting some of her ideas into practice.
仅仅四年后，拜登总统任命莉娜·汗 (Lina Khan) 担任联邦贸易委员会主席，该委员会是美国负责执行反垄断执法的主要政府机构之一，这使她处于罕见的位置，可以将自己的一些想法付诸实践。

Now, two years into the job, Khan has taken some big swings at big tech companies like Meta and Microsoft. But the FTC has also faced a couple of big losses in the courts. On today's show, a conversation with FTC Chair Lina Khan on what it's like to try to turn audacious theory into bureaucratic practice, the FTC's new lawsuit against Amazon, and what it all means for business as usual.
现在，入职两年后，汗在 Meta 和微软等大型科技公司做出了一些重大转变。但联邦贸易委员会也在法庭上面临过几次重大损失。在今天的节目中，我们将与 FTC 主席 Lina Khan 进行对话，讨论如何尝试将大胆的理论转化为官僚实践、FTC 针对亚马逊的新诉讼，以及这一切对一切照旧意味着什么。

FTC Chair Lina Khan's lawsuit isn't about breaking up Amazon, for now
BUSINESS  商业
FTC Chair Lina Khan's lawsuit isn't about breaking up Amazon, for now
联邦贸易委员会主席莉娜·汗的诉讼目前并不是为了拆分亚马逊
Interview Highlights 采访亮点
On the FTC's loss in the Meta/Within Unlimited case, and how there were some small victories for the FTC in the court's decision:
关于 FTC 在 Meta/Within Unlimited 案中的损失，以及 FTC 在法院判决中如何取得一些小胜利：

So the FTC's case, seeking to block Meta's acquisition of Within, was really about what's known as "potential competition." And so the claims in the case included noting that Meta itself had actually been planning to enter this market itself, and it ended up doing this acquisition in ways that short-circuited that organic competition that we would have seen if Meta had organically looked to enter. [...] It's true, we did not win and we were disappointed by that, but the court's decision also had a whole set of really important determinations about how [the] potential competition doctrine applies in digital markets. So in the case, one of Facebook's arguments was that this doctrine is so old it doesn't even apply to these markets, and the court firmly rejected that. [The judge] said, 'No, this potential competition doctrine is alive and well, even in markets like digital markets, even relating to virtual reality,' and he noted a whole set of important ways that that doctrine applies in this market, and gave us a whole set of wins that we can build on in any future cases.
因此，联邦贸易委员会试图阻止 Meta 收购 Within 的案件实际上是关于所谓的“潜在竞争”。因此，该案中的主张包括指出 Meta 本身实际上一直在计划进入这个市场，而它最终以缩短有机竞争的方式进行了这次收购，如果 Meta 有机地希望进入的话，我们会看到这种竞争。 [...]确实，我们没有获胜，我们对此感到失望，但法院的判决还对潜在竞争原则如何适用于数字市场做出了一整套非常重要的决定。因此，在本案中，Facebook 的论点之一是，这一原则太古老了，甚至不适用于这些市场，而法院坚决驳回了这一点。 [法官]说，“不，这种潜在竞争原则仍然存在，甚至在数字市场这样的市场中，甚至与虚拟现实相关，”他指出了该原则在这个市场中的一整套重要应用方式，并且为我们带来了一系列胜利，我们可以在未来的任何情况下继续前进。

On the FTC's case against Amazon and what Khan sees as Amazon's anti-competitive practices:
关于联邦贸易委员会针对亚马逊的案件以及汗认为亚马逊的反竞争行为：

In today's digital economy, if you want to be visible in e-commerce, you generally have to sell on Amazon, and the lawsuit lays out a set of tactics that Amazon has deployed against those merchants that we believe are anti-competitive. It has basically dictated policies that say, 'If you sell on Amazon, you can't sell anywhere else for a lower price, so you can't list your products on any other website for a price that's lower than what you're listing on Amazon.' And one reason that ends up being problematic is because Amazon has also been hiking the fees that it charges these merchants. So these merchants face higher costs on Amazon, but are not able to raise their price on Amazon to reflect those higher costs. And instead, they have to either raise their price on other websites, or they just stop selling anywhere else entirely because Amazon is so punitive when it does see that people have, you know, listed their products elsewhere for a lower price. And so at the end of the day, Amazon's tactics are actually resulting in higher prices, not just on Amazon, but across the rest of the economy.
在当今的数字经济中，如果你想在电子商务中引人注目，你通常必须在亚马逊上销售，该诉讼列出了亚马逊针对那些我们认为反竞争的商家所采取的一系列策略。它基本上规定了这样的政策：“如果你在亚马逊上销售，你就不能以更低的价格在其他任何地方销售，所以你不能以低于你列出的价格在任何其他网站上列出你的产品在亚马逊上。最终出现问题的原因之一是亚马逊也一直在提高向这些商家收取的费用。因此，这些商家在亚马逊上面临更高的成本，但无法提高在亚马逊上的价格来反映这些更高的成本。相反，他们要么提高在其他网站上的价格，要么完全停止在其他地方销售，因为当亚马逊确实看到人们在其他地方以较低的价格列出他们的产品时，它会采取非常严厉的惩罚措施。因此，归根结底，亚马逊的策略实际上导致了价格上涨，不仅是在亚马逊上，而且是在整个经济领域。

Lina Khan is taking swings at Big Tech as FTC chair, and changing how it does business
TECHNOLOGY  技术
Lina Khan is taking swings at Big Tech as FTC chair, and changing how it does business
莉娜·汗 (Lina Khan) 担任联邦贸易委员会 (FTC) 主席，正在对大型科技公司进行调整，并改变其开展业务的方式
On how her strategy and thinking about Amazon's anti-competitive tactics has changed from when she was a law student to now that she is FTC Chair:
从她还是一名法学院学生到现在担任联邦贸易委员会主席，她对亚马逊反竞争策略的策略和思考发生了怎样的变化：

The exercise of doing independent research and writing an academic paper is very different from being a law enforcer, where you have subpoena power, you can investigate what's really going on, and ultimately you're charged with (if you bring a complaint) making sure you're alleging law violations and setting up that case to succeed in court. That said, I'll also note that when you have the monopoly playbook, there are different life cycles of where you can be at any given moment, and the tactics that a firm will take to achieve monopoly power will look different from the tactics that it deploys once it's become a monopoly and is really focused on protecting that monopoly and exploiting that monopoly power. And so the case that we brought really reflects Amazon in the year 2023, and what we believe is now extraction mode, where having cemented its monopoly power, having locked out rivals through [these] illegal tactics, it's able to extract from customers, both on the consumer side as well on the seller side. And so that's what the case is about.
进行独立研究和撰写学术论文与执法者有很大不同，在执法者中，你拥有传票权，你可以调查到底发生了什么，最终你负责（如果你提出投诉）确保您指控违法行为并准备让该案在法庭上胜诉。也就是说，我还要指出，当你掌握了垄断剧本时，你在任何特定时刻都可以处于不同的生命周期，并且公司为实现垄断权力而采取的策略将与现有的策略有所不同。一旦它成为垄断者，它就会部署，并且真正专注于保护垄断并利用垄断力量。因此，我们提起的案例确实反映了 2023 年的亚马逊，我们认为现在是榨取模式，在巩固其垄断权力，通过[这些]非法策略将竞争对手拒之门外后，它能够从客户那里榨取，在消费者方面以及卖方方面。这就是本案的主题。

On how she views her tenure so far as FTC Chair, despite setbacks in court:
尽管在法庭上遭遇挫折，她如何看待自己作为联邦贸易委员会主席的任期：

As a law enforcer, one of the things that I think most about is deterrence. You really want to ensure that firms are not engaging in illegal behavior in the first instance. And one set of comments that have really been promising for us, is hearing from prominent dealmakers, prominent bankers, who will say, 'You know, a few years back when I was part of conversations about whether to do a merger, we never really talked about antitrust until the very, very, very end, if at all. And now that's totally different. We talk about antitrust on day one.' And there are a whole bunch of deals that are not even happening because there's a recognition that they would be legally suspect from an antitrust point of view. So as an enforcer, that deterrence is a huge marker of success, right? We want to be making sure we're conserving our resources, that firms are not engaging in illegal mergers in the first instance, and there are a whole set of indications that that's happening.
作为一名执法者，我最关心的事情之一就是威慑。您确实希望首先确保公司不会从事非法行为。一组对我们来说真正有希望的评论是，来自著名交易撮合者、著名银行家的声音，他们会说，‘你知道，几年前，当我参与关于是否进行合并的对话时，我们从未真正考虑过合并。如果有的话，我们会一直谈论反垄断，直到最后、最后、最后。现在情况完全不同了。我们从第一天就讨论反垄断。”还有一大堆交易甚至没有发生，因为人们认识到，从反垄断的角度来看，这些交易在法律上是可疑的。因此，作为执法者，这种威慑力是成功的巨大标志，对吗？我们希望确保我们正在保护我们的资源，公司一开始就不会参与非法合并，并且有一系列迹象表明这种情况正在发生。

四角池

A source in the Biden-Harris administration is sounding the alarm about “deeply corrupt” calls from billionaire Democratic donors for Kamala Harris to fire FTC commissioner Lina Khan if she wins the 2024 election – something the presumptive presidential nominee has yet to denounce.
拜登-哈里斯政府的一位消息人士对亿万富翁民主党捐助者呼吁卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）发出“深度腐败”的警告，要求卡马拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）在赢得 2024 年大选后解雇联邦贸易委员会委员莉娜·汗（Lina Khan）——而这位总统候选人尚未对此予以谴责。

Venture capitalists Reid Hoffman and Vinod Khosla, and media mogul Barry Diller, who have together donated millions of dollars to Harris’ now-principal campaign committee and associated PACs, were quick to call out Khan as a “dope” who is “waging war” on their business interests — and argue she should be sacked.
风险投资家里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）和维诺德·科斯拉（Vinod Khosla）以及媒体大亨巴里·迪勒（Barry Diller）共同向哈里斯现任主要竞选委员会和相关政治行动委员会捐赠了数百万美元，他们很快就将汗称为“蠢货”，正在“发动战争”。他们的商业利益 - 并认为她应该被解雇。

The anger at Khan comes as the FTC investigates companies in which each man has a financial interest. At least five portfolio companies in which Khosla has invested are currently facing FTC investigations, The Post has learned.
对汗的愤怒之际，联邦贸易委员会正在调查每个人都拥有经济利益的公司。据《华盛顿邮报》获悉，科斯拉投资的至少五家投资组合公司目前正面临联邦贸易委员会的调查。

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a presidential campaign rally on Tuesday, July 30, 2024 at the Georgia State Convocation Center in Atlanta, Ga.
7
A source in the Biden-Harris administration is sounding the alarm about “deeply corrupt” calls from billionaire Democratic donors for Kamala Harris to fire commissioner Lina Khan if she wins the 2024 election.
拜登-哈里斯政府的一位消息人士对卡玛拉·哈里斯的亿万富翁民主党捐助者呼吁“深度腐败”发出警告，如果她赢得 2024 年大选，就解雇专员莉娜·汗。
Richard Burkhart/ USA Today Network / USA TODAY NETWORK
理查德·伯克哈特/今日美国网络/今日美国网络
Khosla, worth an estimated $7.5 billion according to Forbes, took to X Wednesday to echo Hoffman’s comments that Khan needs to go. It’s unclear which companies are in the crosshairs, but Khan’s portfolio includes behemoths like OpenAI and DoorDash.
据福布斯报道，科斯拉的身家估计为 75 亿美元，周三他在 X 上回应了霍夫曼关于汗需要下台的评论。目前尚不清楚哪些公司成为目标，但 Khan 的投资组合包括 OpenAI 和 DoorDash 等巨头。

He had donated $413,000 to the Biden Action Fund in June before Harris’ ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, federal campaign finance filings show.
联邦竞选财务文件显示，在哈里斯成为民主党候选人之前，他于 6 月份向拜登行动基金捐赠了 413,000 美元。

The 95-year-old mother of Marc Fogel, the American teacher imprisoned in Russia for the past three years, slammed the Biden administration for not including her son in the latest prisoner swap that freed three jailed Americans.
拜登-哈里斯政府消息人士表示，“呼吁这样做并与捐款相结合，这是严重腐败的行为”，并指出对霍夫曼担任董事会成员的微软和迪勒旗下 Angi 旗下的 Homeadvisor 进行的反垄断调查。国际航空委员会。

“By publicly calling for her to be removed, they’ve put Kamala in an impossible situation,” the source spilled to The Post. “The idea Kamala would fire a 35-year-old, brown, progressive icon is bananas.”
消息人士向《华盛顿邮报》透露：“通过公开要求将她撤职，他们已经将卡马拉置于了一个不可能的境地。” “卡玛拉解雇一位 35 岁、棕色皮肤的进步偶像的想法简直就是香蕉。”

Neither the Harris campaign nor Hoffman responded to a request for comment.
哈里斯竞选团队和霍夫曼都没有回应置评请求。

Diller, who donated the maximum to the Biden-Harris re-election campaign last year as well as $100,000 to their PAC, told The Post on Wednesday that he regretted his criticisms of Khan’s intelligence — but not her aggressive anti-trust litigation.
迪勒去年向拜登-哈里斯连任竞选活动捐款最多，并向政治行动委员会捐赠了 10 万美元。他周三对《华盛顿邮报》表示，他对批评汗的情报感到遗憾，但对她咄咄逼人的反垄断诉讼并不后悔。

Lina Khan, Chair, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), speaking at a hearing of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government at the U.S. Capitol.
7
The anger at Khan comes as the FTC investigates companies in which each man has a financial interest.
对汗的愤怒之际，联邦贸易委员会正在调查每个人都拥有经济利益的公司。
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
迈克尔·布罗克斯坦/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
“Don’t know what was in my head during that interview — she’s anything but a dope — she’s smart!” he said. “I do disagree with her on competitive issues where I think the FTC has overreached.”
“不知道在那次采访中我脑子里在想什么——她绝不是个傻瓜——她很聪明！”他说。 “在竞争问题上，我确实不同意她的观点，我认为联邦贸易委员会的做法有些过分。”

But Hoffman in an interview with CNN on Tuesday afternoon doubled down his calls for Khan’s ouster, claiming that he was “not buying levels of influence.”
但霍夫曼在周二下午接受美国有线电视新闻网 (CNN) 采访时，加大了要求汗下台的呼吁，声称他“不会购买影响力”。

“I would hope that Vice President Harris would replace her,” he told CNN anchor Jake Tapper, adding that his opinion as a “donor and expert should be kept secre– separate.”
“我希望副总统哈里斯能够取代她，”他告诉美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）主播杰克·塔珀（Jake Tapper），并补充说他作为“捐助者和专家的意见应该保密”。

Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn Corp., speaks during the Bloomberg Technology Summit in San Francisco, California, US, on Thursday, June 22, 2023.
7
Hoffman in an interview with CNN on Tuesday afternoon doubled down his calls for Khan’s ouster, claiming that he was “not buying levels of influence.”
霍夫曼周二下午在接受美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）采访时，加大了要求汗下台的呼声，声称他“不会购买影响力”。
Bloomberg via Getty Images
彭博社通过盖蒂图片社
The LinkedIn cofounder, who has given at least $7 million so far this year to the Harris-aligned Future Forward PAC, went on to say, “I don’t ever show up at the White House saying, ‘I think you should do this.’”
这位LinkedIn联合创始人今年迄今为止已向与哈里斯结盟的Future Forward PAC捐赠了至少700万美元，他接着说：“我从来没有出现在白宫说，‘我认为你应该这样做.’”

But in December 2023, visitor logs show Hoffman took meetings with White House aides including Rachel Chiu, who serves as a special assistant to the president and chief of staff at the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach.
但在 2023 年 12 月，访客日志显示，霍夫曼与白宫助手进行了会面，其中包括担任总统特别助理兼政治战略和外联办公室幕僚长的 Rachel Chiu。

The Democratic megadonor funneled $923,000 to the then-Biden Victory Fund, now Harris Victory Fund, a little more than two weeks after the West Wing sit-down.
在西翼静坐两周多后，这位民主党巨额捐助者向当时的拜登胜利基金（现在的哈里斯胜利基金）注入了 923,000 美元。

Barry Diller, chairman and chief executive officer of IAC/InterActiveCorp
7
“Don’t know what was in my head during that interview — she’s anything but a dope — she’s smart!” Diller told The Post. “I do thought disagree with her on competitive issues where I think the FTC has overreached.”
“不知道在那次采访中我脑子里在想什么——她绝不是个傻瓜——她很聪明！”迪勒告诉《华盛顿邮报》。 “我确实认为在竞争问题上不同意她的观点，我认为联邦贸易委员会在这些问题上做得太过分了。”
Bloomberg via Getty Images
彭博社通过盖蒂图片社
“When I speak to these things, I speak more as a venture capitalist — I never speak as a Microsoft board member,” Hoffman went on to tell an incredulous Tapper. “I’ve never had a conversation with Kamala Harris about this.”
“当我谈论这些事情时，我更多地以风险投资家的身份说话——我从来不以微软董事会成员的身份说话，”霍夫曼接着对难以置信的塔珀说道。 “我从未与卡马拉·哈里斯谈论过此事。”

“There aren’t like a hundred Reid Hoffman,” Tapper shot back. “It’s not like one of you is a donor, and one of you has opinions on Lina Khan, and one of you is on the board of Microsoft and one of you is a venture capitalist.”
“里德·霍夫曼的数量不到一百个，”塔珀反驳道。 “这不像你们中的一个是捐助者，一个对莉娜·汗有意见，一个是微软董事会成员，一个是风险投资家。”

“I don’t think there’s a politician alive that’s able to compartmentalize the way you’re suggesting they should,” he emphasized, before noting: “You and other donors went after Lina Khan pretty quickly after Biden announced he was dropping out of the 2024 race.”
他强调说：“我认为没有一个活着的政治家能够按照你建议的方式进行划分。”然后指出：“在拜登宣布退出竞选后，你和其他捐助者很快就追随了莉娜·汗。” 2024 年比赛。”

Reid Hoffman joins The Lead with Jake Tapper
7
“I don’t think there’s a politician alive that’s able to compartmentalize the way you’re suggesting they should,” Tapper told Hoffman, noting: “You and other donors went after Lina Khan pretty quickly after Biden announced he was dropping out.”
塔珀告诉霍夫曼：“我认为没有一个活着的政治家能够按照你建议的方式进行划分。”他指出：“在拜登宣布退出后，你和其他捐助者很快就追捕了莉娜·汗。”
CNN 美国有线电视新闻网
Hoffman refused to back down and even suggested that Harris “might watch our segment.” Still, he acknowledged that his support for Harris and disdain for Khan wasn’t doing the Democratic Party any favors given Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance’s backing of the FTC commissioner.
霍夫曼拒绝让步，甚至建议哈里斯“可以观看我们的节目”。尽管如此，他承认，鉴于共和党副总统候选人 JD 万斯对联邦贸易委员会委员的支持，他对哈里斯的支持和对汗的蔑视并没有给民主党带来任何好处。

“Lina Khan is the person I would point out as the best person within the Biden administration,” Vance had said at Bloomberg’s “RemedyFest” tech forum in February. “I like a lot of things that Lina Khan is doing.”   
“我认为莉娜·汗是拜登政府内最好的人选，”万斯二月份在彭博社的“RemedyFest”科技论坛上表示。 “我喜欢莉娜·汗所做的很多事情。”

The infighting between the Biden-Harris administration official and Democratic donors is revealing the party now “caters to corporate big tech interests,” one GOP operative told The Post
一名共和党工作人员告诉《华盛顿邮报》，拜登-哈里斯政府官员与民主党捐助者之间的内讧表明该党现在“迎合大型科技公司的利益”


7
Hoffman refused to back down and even suggested that Harris “might watch our segment,” while acknowledging that his support for Harris and disdain for Khan wasn’t doing the Democratic Party any favors.
霍夫曼拒绝让步，甚至建议哈里斯“可能会看我们的节目”，同时承认他对哈里斯的支持和对汗的蔑视不会给民主党带来任何好处。
AFP via Getty Images 法新社通过盖蒂图片社
“There was a left-wing populist movement and they used to be anti-Wall Street and anti-big tech but they aren’t anymore,” the operative said.
“有一场左翼民粹主义运动，他们曾经反华尔街和反大型科技公司，但现在不再了，”这位特工说。

“Vance thinks about antitrust; and they have a serious antitrust agenda and they’re probably more friendly to Khan,” the operative added. “They would probably want to focus on tech/media and give oil/gas a pass. But they agree that tech companies need scrutiny.”
“万斯考虑反垄断；他们有严肃的反垄断议程，而且他们可能对汗更友好，”该特工补充道。 “他们可能希望专注于科技/媒体，并给予石油/天然气通过。但他们一致认为科技公司需要接受审查。”

“The issue is they’re likely to use antitrust to pursue an agenda and she wouldn’t fall in line,” the source also said. “They want someone who can continue her record who will do Trump’s bidding.”
“问题是他们可能会利用反垄断来实现议程，而她不会遵守，”消息人士还表示。 “他们想要一个能够延续她的记录、听从特朗普命令的人。”

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump and Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, arrive at a campaign rally, Saturday, July 20, 2024, in Grand Rapids, Mich.
7
“Vance thinks about antitrust; and they have a serious antitrust agenda and they’re probably more friendly to Khan,” one GOP operative told The Post.
“万斯考虑反垄断；他们有严肃的反垄断议程，而且他们可能对汗更友好，”一位共和党工作人员告诉《华盛顿邮报》。
AP 美联社
Hoffman, sources also said, needs more friends in Washington as he and Microsoft face even more scrutiny from lawmakers.
消息人士还表示，霍夫曼在华盛顿需要更多的朋友，因为他和微软面临着立法者更严格的审查。

Over the last few weeks lawmakers have weighed investigating Microsoft in response to comments he made about his wish for Trump to be an “actual martyr,” according to the Washington Reporter.
据《华盛顿报道》报道，过去几周，议员们考虑对微软进行调查，以回应他希望特朗普成为“真正的烈士”的言论。

The company is also under fire following allegations they routed support calls made to Department of Defense contractors to China.
该公司还因被指控将给国防部承包商的支持电话转接到中国而受到批评。

Hoffman is both trying to ingratiate himself to candidates and trying to distance himself from anything controversial — including splitting from former adviser Dmitri Mehlhorn who suggested the assassination attempt on Trump could have been “staged.”
霍夫曼既试图讨好候选人，又试图与任何有争议的事情保持距离——包括与前顾问德米特里·梅尔霍恩(Dmitri Mehlhorn)分道扬镳，后者暗示对特朗普的暗杀企图可能是“上演的”。

Antitrust support has gone mainstream in recent years, with polling from YouGov showing nearly 70% of voters want antitrust action.
近年来，反垄断支持已成为主流，YouGov 的民意调查显示，近 70%的选民希望采取反垄断行动。

The FTC declined to comment.
联邦贸易委员会拒绝发表评论。

四角池

中国同路人lllll

“Khanservatives” Are Wrong About Big Tech
“汗保守派”对大型科技公司的看法是错误的

The “Big Tech” antitrust debate is reaching a fever pitch on the right. While a tiny minority of conservatives have long expressed a desire to weaponize antitrust against Big Tech, more and more so-called “Khanservatives” are calling for aggressive enforcement to punish Big Tech for its supposed sins. For example, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) wrote a whole book in 2021 about The Tyranny of Big Tech. In a hearing earlier this year, Republican senators alleged that Meta was “killing people.” Just a few weeks ago, senator and potential VP candidate J.D. Vance (R-OH) called for Google to be broken up on the grounds that it is a “threat to democracy.” And, in response to the Justice Department’s recent antitrust lawsuit against Apple, a number of leading conservative organizations, including the Claremont Institute and representatives from both the Heritage Foundation and the Ethics & Public Policy Center, submitted a letter to DOJ supporting the case.
右翼关于“大型科技”反垄断的争论正达到白热化程度。虽然极少数保守派长期以来一直表示希望将反垄断武器化以对付大型科技公司，但越来越多的所谓“汗保守派”正在呼吁采取积极的执法措施，以惩罚大型科技公司所谓的罪行。例如，密苏里州共和党参议员乔什·霍利 (Josh Hawley) 在 2021 年写了一整本书，内容涉及《科技巨头的暴政》 。在今年早些时候的一次听证会上，共和党参议员声称梅塔正在“杀人”。就在几周前，参议员兼潜在副总统候选人 JD 万斯 (R-OH)呼吁分拆谷歌，理由是它是“对民主的威胁”。而且，为了回应司法部最近针对苹果公司的反垄断诉讼，包括克莱蒙特研究所以及传统基金会和道德与公共政策中心的代表在内的一些主要保守派组织向司法部提交了一封支持该案的信函。

Conservatives typically make several arguments against Big Tech that go beyond mere allegations of anticompetitive conduct. First, conservatives have claimed that Big Tech is insufficiently loyal to American values and all too willing to cozy up to adversaries like China. For example, in their letter to DOJ, the conservative organizations argued that Apple “has built deep economic ties with the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party (CCP), leveraging their closed ecosystem to facilitate the CCP’s human rights abuses.” But the reality is that American companies compete globally and have no choice but to abide by the rules that are set for them by foreign governments. In other words, they must respect national sovereignty, which is typically seen as a virtue for national conservatives and the anti-tech “New Right,” and which creates a role for the U.S. government to forcefully advocate against problematic foreign regulations and practices—not penalize its most globally admired firms.
保守派通常会提出一些反对大型科技公司的论点，而不仅仅是对反竞争行为的指控。首先，保守派声称大型科技公司对美国价值观不够忠诚，而且太愿意巴结中国等对手。例如，保守派组织在给司法部的信中辩称，苹果“与专制的中国共产党（CCP）建立了深厚的经济联系，利用其封闭的生态系统为中共的侵犯人权行为提供便利。”但现实是，美国公司在全球范围内竞争，别无选择，只能遵守外国政府为其制定的规则。换句话说，他们必须尊重国家主权，这通常被视为国家保守派和反科技“新右派”的美德，并为美国政府创造了一个角色，可以强力倡导反对有问题的外国法规和做法，而不是惩罚其最受全球推崇的公司。

Of course, punishing Apple will do nothing to change the authoritarian nature of the Chinese regime, but instead only strengthen it. Amidst an ongoing technology race in key areas like artificial intelligence and robotics, the scale enjoyed by large American technology companies is essential to underwrite the billions of dollars in investments needed for the next-generation innovations that will keep the West technologically on top. As we at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) explained in the most recent edition of our Hamilton Index, the hour is already later than many realize: “China was the leading producer in seven of the ten strategically important industries” with “[i]ts gains coming at the expense of the United States and other G7 and OECD economics.” Indeed, in robotics specifically, ITIF has found that China is spending billions to make sure its firms are leaders in this critical industry, and it already leads the world in robotics patents and adoption rates.
当然，惩罚苹果并不能改变中国政权的专制本质，只会强化它。在人工智能和机器人等关键领域正在进行的技术竞赛中，美国大型科技公司所享有的规模对于承担下一代创新所需的数十亿美元投资至关重要，这些投资将使西方在技术上保持领先地位。正如我们信息技术与创新基金会 (ITIF) 在最新一期的汉密尔顿指数中所解释的那样，这个时间已经比许多人意识到的要晚了：“中国是十大具有战略意义的重要产业中的七个的领先生产国”，“[它的收益是以牺牲美国和其他七国集团和经合组织经济体为代价的。”事实上，特别是在机器人技术领域，ITIF发现中国正在花费数十亿美元来确保其企业成为这一关键行业的领导者，而且中国在机器人专利和采用率方面已经领先于世界。

China, ever the “fast follower,” also recognizes how antitrust policy can further its ends. For example, while China is busy scaling up its own technology firms through mergers and state subsidies, as Lingling Wei and Asa Fitch wrote in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, China’s antitrust regulator “is holding back its required green light for mergers that involve American companies as a technology war with Washington intensifies.” All the while, the Biden administration has issued its own merger guidelines, which create further roadblocks for U.S. firms seeking to gain scale. In other words, while Xi Jinping, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, and now the New Right all appear to share the goal of preventing Big Tech and the rest of corporate America from achieving the scale and dynamism needed to win globally, it is only China who ultimately wins.
作为“快速追随者”的中国也认识到反垄断政策如何能够进一步实现其目标。例如，正如魏玲玲和阿萨·惠誉今年早些时候在《华尔街日报》上所写的那样，尽管中国正忙于通过合并和国家补贴扩大自己的科技公司规模，但中国的反垄断监管机构“却没有为涉及以下领域的合并开绿灯”：美国公司与华盛顿的技术战愈演愈烈。”与此同时，拜登政府发布了自己的合并指导方针，这为寻求扩大规模的美国公司设置了进一步的障碍。换句话说，尽管习近平、联邦贸易委员会主席莉娜·汗以及现在的新右派似乎都有一个共同目标，即阻止大型科技公司和其他美国企业实现赢得全球胜利所需的规模和活力，但这只是中国队最终获胜。

Another common refrain from many conservatives alleges that Big Tech is not too removed from American affairs, but too embroiled in them. For example, some argue that companies like Google bias search results in favor of Democrats, censor conservative speech, or release “woke” products, as was claimed with Google’s Gemini AI. Similar claims are made from the left, as Facebook has long been criticized as favoring conservatives and even helping to elect Donald Trump, while X (formerly Twitter) is accused of enabling an online right-wing renaissance. And yet, Big Tech companies are first and foremost out to make a profit. Indeed, hostility to conservatives is best explained not by company policies, but by individual employees acting on their own or by the outsized influence of third-party groups advocating their views about how tech companies should operate. Moreover, breaking up firms like Google would not only come at the expense of the network and scale that make its search engine work—regardless of any political slant—but spinning off products like YouTube would do nothing to address concerns about alleged bias.
许多保守派人士的另一个常见说法是，大型科技公司并不是太远离美国事务，而是过于卷入美国事务。例如，一些人认为，像谷歌这样的公司会偏向有利于民主党的搜索结果，审查保守派言论，或者发布“唤醒”产品，就像谷歌的 Gemini AI 所声称的那样。左翼人士也提出了类似的说法，因为 Facebook 长期以来一直被批评为偏袒保守派，甚至帮助唐纳德·特朗普当选，而 X（前身为 Twitter）则被指责推动了在线右翼复兴。然而，大型科技公司首先是为了盈利。事实上，对保守派的敌意最好的解释不是公司政策，而是个别员工的自行行动，或第三方团体的巨大影响力，这些团体主张他们对科技公司应如何运作的看法。此外，分拆像谷歌这样的公司不仅会牺牲其搜索引擎运行所需的网络和规模（无论政治倾向如何），而且剥离 YouTube 这样的产品也无助于解决人们对所谓偏见的担忧。

Finally, rather than being overly political and in favor of Democrats, some conservatives have accused Big Tech of ignoring the consequences of their technologies on public morality, such as the effects of social media on children. To be sure, concerns from the right about technological change on the existing social order are not new. Before video games and television, even the printing press was a tool of revolution and subversion. But conservatives must acknowledge the fact that the rise of social media and Big Tech have made the marketplace for ideas far more open to conservative viewpoints than it was when the media was essentially controlled by six largely New York-based conglomerates. Indeed, the breakdown of this old media echo chamber, infused with the liberal-progressive values of the new countercultural elite, is perhaps the greatest opportunity for conservatives to gain ground in the “culture war” that for decades they have been badly losing.
最后，一些保守派并没有过度政治化和支持民主党，而是指责大型科技公司忽视了其技术对公共道德的影响，例如社交媒体对儿童的影响。平心而论，右翼对技术变革对现有社会秩序的担忧并不新鲜。在电子游戏和电视出现之前，甚至印刷机也是革命和颠覆的工具。但保守派必须承认这样一个事实，即社交媒体和大型科技公司的崛起使得思想市场对保守派观点更加开放，而媒体基本上由六家主要总部位于纽约的企业集团控制。事实上，这个充满了新反文化精英的自由进步价值观的旧媒体回音室的崩溃，也许是保守派在几十年来一直惨败的“文化战争”中取得进展的最好机会。

Even if these political and moral concerns against Big Tech were legitimate, the sort of politicization of the antitrust laws or heavy-handed regulation needed to address them will ultimately backfire for conservatives. As the progressive antitrust “neo-Brandeisians” have already hinted, a political approach to antitrust will not just be deployed against Big Tech, but in the words of one FTC Commissioner, “play a role in racial equity” and “combat systemic racism”—not just in the United States, but globally. For instance, last year the OECD released a Gender Inclusive Competition Toolkit to provide “a comprehensive framework for integrating gender considerations” into antitrust law. But, rather than further empower regulators, dismantling the already considerable administrative bureaucracy and state apparatuses is an official promise of conservative organizations like the influential Heritage Foundation. That is, when taking to account what future Democratic administrations would do with enhanced state powers, including antitrust, their calculation is simple: Big government remains far more dangerous in the hands of Democrats than it is beneficial when under the control of Republicans.
即使这些针对大型科技公司的政治和道德担忧是合理的，解决这些问题所需的反垄断法政治化或严厉监管最终也会对保守派产生适得其反的效果。正如进步的反垄断“新布兰代斯主义者”已经暗示的那样，反垄断的政治方法不仅会针对大型科技公司，而且用一位联邦贸易委员会委员的话说，“在种族平等方面发挥作用”并“打击系统性种族主义” ——不仅在美国，而且在全球范围内。例如，去年经合组织发布了性别包容性竞争工具包，以提供“将性别考虑纳入反垄断法的综合框架”。但是，像有影响力的传统基金会这样的保守派组织的官方承诺不是进一步赋予监管机构权力，而是废除已经相当大的行政官僚机构和国家机构。也就是说，在考虑未来民主党政府将如何加强国家权力（包括反垄断）时，他们的计算很简单：大政府在民主党手中的危险性远大于在共和党控制下的好处。

“Khanservatism” is having a moment. But instead of making a Faustian bargain with neo-Brandeisians, conservatives must come to grips with what the neo-Brandeisian movement really is: a revolutionary assault on corporate America operating under the guise of “protecting democracy.” Allying with that cause would effectively break the coalition between social and business conservatives that has long defined the American Right. In so doing, conservatives would dash their chances of effectively pushing back against what they view as out-of-control progressivism. Conservatives must reject the antitrust Jacobins and rally around America’s first principles not just of order, but also liberty, if the fate of America and the New World is to fare better against the revolution than that of Europe and the Old.
“汗奴主义”正在流行。但保守派不应与新布兰代斯主义者进行浮士德式的讨价还价，而必须正视新布兰代斯运动的真正含义：对打着“保护民主”幌子运作的美国企业界进行革命性的攻击。与这一事业结盟将有效地打破长期以来定义美国右翼的社会保守派和商业保守派之间的联盟。这样做的话，保守派将失去有效反击他们认为失控的进步主义的机会。如果美国和新世界的命运要比欧洲和旧世界更好地抵御革命，保守派就必须拒绝反托拉斯雅各宾派，并团结在美国的首要原则周围，不仅是秩序，而且还有自由。