I previously posted a list of movies that detail either the importance of #antitrust, its consequences when enforcement is non-existent, and over all the negatives of big business. But I have to say @thegreathackdoc featuring @profcarroll tops them all. danielhanley.com/2018/04/17/ant…
@thegreathackdoc@profcarroll@thegreathackdoc is the first film I have seen that clearly lays down the position that democracy and individual autonomy are at stake in the fight against big business - in this case the technology giants.
@thegreathackdoc@profcarroll The film details the frightening but very real consequences of allowing the tech goliaths to establish dominion over every aspect of our lives. While the film mainly features the events of the Cambridge Analytica Scandal & the role FB played, it avoids just talking about FB.
@thegreathackdoc@profcarroll The film details how all of the tech goliaths and the individuals that head them are the puppet masters and king makers, unless something is done. Numerous examples are shown with how data has been used to facilitate a political message: Obama '08, Trump '16, Bolsonaro '19,Brexit
@thegreathackdoc@profcarroll And something must clearly be done. If you want a better understanding of how data has been used to persuade the populace of multiple countries and the consequences of concentrated tech power watch @thegreathackdoc
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ok @profthomlambert here is my full response. 1. As the legislative history makes abundantly clear, Congress expressly enacted the Clayton Act in response to Standard Oil's (primordial) RoR. So it wouldn't make sense for a statute to use the RoR when it was enacted to avoid it.
2. Contrary to the brief you signed on to, no where does Tampa Electric use the phrase "rule of reason."
You would think "explicitly prescribed" used in your brief would mean SCOTUS specifically said it, but you admit in your tweet "The Court may not have used the magic words"
3. Tampa Electric *AFFIRMS* Standard Stations which itself completely refutes a RoR analysis because "such an investigation would be to stultify the force of Congress’ declaration" and "a standard..most ill-suited for ascertainment by courts."
337 U.S. at 310, 313 (1949)
It repealed the ownership cap on the number of radio stations a single corporation could own nationally. § 202(a), § 302(b)(1).
It substantially repealed the consent decree which broke up AT&T and restrained the Regional Bell Operating Companies from entering the data processing industry.
Basically, it allowed the Bell telecoms to re-merge. Which they did! wsj.com/articles/at-t-…
Does anyone seriously believe that #SCOTUS oral argument makes a difference?
Personally, I think any Justice that changes their mind based off of several minutes of testimony rather than a thoughtful and detailed brief is not very good at their job.
This is not to say oral argument doesn't have meaning. For example, at the district court level in the criminal context, it is absolutely necessary to hear the voice and argument of the parties. Emotional weight has value.
This is just not present at the #SCOTUS level though.
I think oral argument is around just to give some personality around the court and humanize a building of individuals that mostly read and write all day and also make few public appearances.
The crux of the case comes down to whether the word "injunction" in Section 13(b) of the FTC Act allows for restitution.
Through an extensive amount of research and reading several 19th Century treatises, cases, and examples, @openmarkets submitted a brief in support of the FTC.
Dem party elites prevented Henry Wallace from the 1944 VP. Elites didn't want Wallace, despite everyone else wanting him. The elites acted and succeed. Bernie is the same treatment. Read the story 👇 #SuperTuesday#SuperTuesdayResults#SuperTuesday2020