One post, authored by Khan’s staff, was published on January 3, 2025, with the title “AI and the Risk of Consumer Harm.” It noted that the FTC was “taking note of AI’s potential for real-world instances of harm — from incentivizing commercial surveillance to enabling fraud and impersonation to perpetuating illegal discrimination.”
Khan? She was terrible for the FTC, and abysmal at her job. Everything she went after was only because of ideological reasons, not when there was actually anything illegal happening, and it absolutely destroyed the morale of the FTC because she was picking fights they all knew they were going to lose, and lose spectacularly. The most glaring example of this was the MS/Activision buyout - their entire argument was that poor Sony won’t be able to compete with the Microsoft Monopoly, despite Microsoft being a distant and dead last in the gaming industry, and Sony themselves saying they’re not worried lol.
Their whole plan seemed to be to just keep delaying and delaying and delaying their case, hoping that the EU or some other government would actually have a valid argument and be able to block it, at which point Khan could claim that she won, beating Microsoft - but then when everyone else OK’d it and the FTC couldn’t delay their court day any longer, they got absolutely berated by the judges and essentially laughed out of court in an absolute beatdown of a defeat.
What do you mean by “ideological reasons”? You’re using the phrase as if it’s a bad thing, but I struggle to imagine how anyone could exist in a political role such as FTC chair and not bring their ideology into their work.
It is a bad thing. The role of the FTC isn’t to go after companies because the head of the FTC just doesn’t like them - they’re supposed to be looking out for the consumer. Under Khan the FTC just wasted everyone’s time and money by picking fights with “big tech” over things that weren’t illegal and the FTC had no chance of winning.
Khan? She was terrible for the FTC, and abysmal at her job. Everything she went after was only because of ideological reasons, not when there was actually anything illegal happening, and it absolutely destroyed the morale of the FTC because she was picking fights they all knew they were going to lose, and lose spectacularly. The most glaring example of this was the MS/Activision buyout - their entire argument was that poor Sony won’t be able to compete with the Microsoft Monopoly, despite Microsoft being a distant and dead last in the gaming industry, and Sony themselves saying they’re not worried lol.
Their whole plan seemed to be to just keep delaying and delaying and delaying their case, hoping that the EU or some other government would actually have a valid argument and be able to block it, at which point Khan could claim that she won, beating Microsoft - but then when everyone else OK’d it and the FTC couldn’t delay their court day any longer, they got absolutely berated by the judges and essentially laughed out of court in an absolute beatdown of a defeat.
User name does not check out
How?
What do you mean by “ideological reasons”? You’re using the phrase as if it’s a bad thing, but I struggle to imagine how anyone could exist in a political role such as FTC chair and not bring their ideology into their work.
It is a bad thing. The role of the FTC isn’t to go after companies because the head of the FTC just doesn’t like them - they’re supposed to be looking out for the consumer. Under Khan the FTC just wasted everyone’s time and money by picking fights with “big tech” over things that weren’t illegal and the FTC had no chance of winning.
Removed by mod