this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025

375 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

76339 readers

3978 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

375

FTC removes Lina Khan-era posts about AI risks and open source (techcrunch.com)

submitted 4 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 44 points 4 days ago (3 children)

satan! one of the rare times you have someone really good in that position. ugh.

[–] etherphon@piefed.world 26 points 4 days ago

I heard her speak a few times on the Daily Show and had such high hopes for the things she was talking about which are of course deader than dead now that tech bros have literally moved in.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 days ago

I can't thknk of someone more "for the people" in my 35+ years on this shit ball called earth

[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -25 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

User name does not check out

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -3 points 3 days ago

How?

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -2 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 48 points 4 days ago

We have gone full Soviet.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago

"Open weight models are good (kind of)" is still up here https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/remarks-by-chair-lina-m-khan-at-y-combinator.pdf

The objectively best part about them is scaling them small enough to run privately. The problem with AI as a "National Security" strategy is that it is a Skynet datacenter strategy. The reason to remove government content that it is ok for you to use AI for your purposes is that Skynet won't be able to control you. The motivation for all of the datacenter investments is that the US government will buy all of the datacenter time to ensure Israel's rule over the US.

[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -52 points 4 days ago (4 children)

As we can see, Biden (and we can assume also his would-be successor Harris) was just another Democrat beholden to corporate interests. He used Lina Khan to further the appearance of caring about consumers and working on their behalf.

Edit: It looks like I may have been mistaken and both sides are really not the same.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You obviously did not follow the woman's work. She was hitting monopolies hard when no one else had the guts to. She was our lest best hope to break the oligarchy.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Your not wrong that corporations win regardless of the party but how does a Trump appointee removing posts turn into an example of democrats being guilty of this?

Like, there is a inexhaustible lists of examples of how the class war is ingrained in politics, you don’t need to invent any and regardless of your intentions i doubt this is accomplishing them.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So, what's your alternate username from lemmy.ml?

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 14 points 4 days ago

Private Szjulbyakov, perfectly normal western capitalist name, why?

[–] hazardous_area@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You talk about it like she just sat there, once she was appointed.

I think that discounts the agency that Lina Khan had and still has post appointment.

She speaks quite passionately about pro consumer economic policies and actually started cracking down on some of monopolies that hurt consumers. Hell of a lot more than I’ve seen from many US politicians recently.

Either way I don’t think I’m changing your mind so I’ll stop here.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -5 points 4 days ago

She speaks quite passionately about pro consumer economic policies and actually started cracking down on some of monopolies that hurt consumers. Hell of a lot more than I’ve seen from many US politicians recently.

Her main problem was that she went after companies over things that weren't illegal purely for ideological reasons, knowing the FTC didn't have a hope in hell of winning. It's a terrible strategy and it massively hurt them, along with consumers ironically, as it made the FTC look incompetent, weaponized, and gave the big tech companies wins on the board that could be used for future cases.