Jessica Melugin on supposed predatory pricing by Amazon:

The case for predatory pricing against the tech giant is as follows: Amazon is subsidizing low prices on its e-commerce platform and in third-party logistics with profits from its cloud-computing division, Amazon Web Services (AWS). This will ultimately (so the argument runs) drive competitors out of business, which will allow Amazon to raise prices.
Note that even if this theory is correct, consumers are benefiting on the front end from lower prices and expanded logistics. Under U.S. antitrust law, the standard for triggering enforcement action is consumer harm — the opposite of what Amazon’s customers are now experiencing. And so, for example, at a time when inflation is a toll on consumers’ budgets, there are currently 148 million Prime subscribers enjoying alleged artificially low prices, and other Amazon customers can benefit too (depending on the relative cost of delivery to the price of the good being bought). So where’s the “harm”? But what happens down the road when Amazon can (theoretically) raise prices, having (theoretically) driven its competitors out of business?

Jennifer Huddleston on privacy and big tech:

A uniform federal data-privacy law, then, succeeds where the proposed antitrust changes and our currency state privacy model fail. It would actually address what Americans care about online and increase opportunities for competition.
While federal privacy legislation would be a legitimate step in the right direction, federal policy-makers must still be careful to balance the trade-offs between innovation, speech, and privacy. While a poorly drafted law with cumbersome regulatory requirements could further entrench the largest players and result in user and innovator frustration, a well-drafted one would give American voters what they want — trust and safety online.