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.