better understand Facebook antitrust case by looking back at Reagan times when the antitrust law was reinterpreted to restrici it to “consumer harm”
the whole sotry is told by Doctorow https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/10/borked/#zucked
“For instance, in a 1979 decision, the Supreme Court, quoting Bork’s Antitrust Paradox and relying on his fabricated account of congressional intent, stated “Congress designed the Sherman Act as a ‘consumer welfare prescription.’”” https://promarket.org/2019/09/05/how-robert-bork-fathered-the-new-gilded-age/ Bork re-interpretation steered antitrust law toward ant-collusion and makes possibile to use it against workers “colluding” to protect themselves
the key to facebook case is demonstrating that democratic harm is indeed consumer harm
“In 2019, Dina Srinivasan published a landmark paper: “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook,” which made incredibly clever arguments showing that FB’s democratic harms were also consumer harms, meaning FB could be sued without first undoing Borkism.
UPDATE 30 june 2021 2 weeks ago Lisa Khan, antitrust scholar was sworn in as president of the Federal Trade Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan
while yesterday we saw Borkism in action when the judge dismissed two antitrust lawsuits against Facebook Inc., brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a group of state attorneys general
Clearly, consumer welfare isn’t at risk with free service, no price hike even if facebook dominant position in social networking was demonstrted, so FB isn’t a mkonopoly, now thye batlle will be to promote a different interpretation of antitrust law, away from borkism, Matt Levine call it “hipster antitrust” really ? I like it. “Facebook Is Big But Maybe Not a Monopoly” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-29/facebook-victory-against-the-ftc-is-an-antitrust-lesson-in-monopoly-power-kqi8jeku