New FTC Chair, breaking up big tech, government silent spying, Jon Stewart, wildfires & more

The episode opens with light chatter about a call or meeting, a joke that every week Chamath is in Italy another button gets undone, and the show's usual catchphrases. The host then welcomes listeners to episode 36 and introduces Friedberg, who led off the previous episode with a science monologue that he says the crowd loved.

Asked about that performance, Friedberg says he had planned to talk about the Biogen Alzheimer's drug approval and felt he was finished once he had done it. The host compares the interview to talking to a basketball star after a 50-point game, and then greets Sacks, who says he is not in a hotel room, drawing a joke that his home looks like a five-star resort.

The host teases Sacks about trailing in monologue minutes. A speaker responds that he cares about quality, not quantity, and likes to stick in a jab. The host explains that a Twitter account run by fans analyzes the audio to show how many minutes each person speaks per episode, and notes the fans also make videos and music, mentioning Henry, the animator, and another fan nicknamed Spielberg.

According to the host, the analysis expected Friedberg to run away with the episode but he faded in the second half, and Chamath came around the corner to take 27 percent in a pie chart of speaking time. A speaker jokes that he always has a strong first and third quarter, and another compares him to LeBron in his early days. The figures are as relayed by the host and have not been checked.

The host turns to the news that Lina Khan has been confirmed to the FTC with bipartisan support. He says the Senate voted 69 to 28 and that she is 32 years old and a well-established critic of Big Tech. The transcript garbles her name in places, and the host's figures are as stated by him.

He says he researched her and watched videos, and that she has written two notable papers: one from 2017 on Amazon and antitrust, and one from June on separating platforms from commerce. In his view she speaks credibly and knowledgeably, unlike senators in hearings who he says have no idea what they are talking about. He adds that she formed many opinions by speaking with venture capitalists worried about Amazon's dominance.

The host describes her as looking beyond consumer welfare, one lens of antitrust, and says she believes other harms exist even though prices have fallen and services are free. He says she favors ending Amazon Basics because a marketplace should not own the goods sold on it, and worries that cloud consolidation creates fragility. These are the host's summaries of her views, not quotations.

The host says she raised Facebook's purchase of Anovo (as transcribed), described as a reported spyware VPN that could give a product road map advantage, and Amazon studying other sellers' sales to inform Amazon Basics. He says Amazon denies this while, in his view, everyone knows it happens, and notes she also discussed Amazon's venture arm using data to invest. These are claims as the host relays them; he does not cite sources.

In his reading she wants Amazon Web Services spun out, which he guesses would add 50 to 100 percent to its value, and gives pragmatic examples such as separating Google Maps from Android so users could choose among map programs. He says she does not think these cases need to be decade-long lawsuits, and expects negotiation. He frames the backdrop as partisan, with one group looking through the lens of wealth and inequality and another through censorship.

Asked as the group's lawyer, a speaker notes that Khan is the candidate approved by Bernie and liked by the progressive left, yet got 21 Republicans, so the nomination sailed through. He says her argument is a good one: Amazon controls essential infrastructure, from AWS to the supply chain from port to warehouse, and as a scaled monopoly can use its profits to subsidize its entry into each new category, which she calls predatory pricing. He thinks that is a valid concern.

He draws an analogy to Apple and Google and the app stores, citing a recent congressional hearing where Spotify and other apps complained about Apple's 30 percent rate, which Spotify said was meant to make its service unviable against Apple Music. He recalls Bill Gurley writing that being able to charge 30 percent does not mean one should. His conclusion is that a monopoly platform should not be used to take over every application built on it, which he calls an appropriate use of antitrust law.

His concern is that antitrust used to be judged on consumer welfare, prices and their effects, which gave the government a limiting principle. The so-called hipster antitrust movement that Khan represents is concerned about power and wants to restructure markets, and he sees no limiting principle there. Asked whether market share could be one, he says it would limit whom to act against but not how to restructure the market.

He predicts hyper-politicization of Big Tech markets, and that Republicans who voted for her may become like the dog who caught the bumper, getting the regulation they wanted but disliking the results, with intrusive government meddling beyond the gatekeeper principle. This is his forecast. The transcript says 20 or 100 Republicans in one passage and 21 earlier.

Asked next, Chamath says Khan must be careful about focusing on Amazon, and says antitrust law has three big buckets of attack. He disclaims being an expert but says they are easy to understand. The first is the Sherman Act, which he says is where most enforcement action against tech has failed.

He explains that the Sherman Act, written in the 1800s, targets predatory pricing power, when controlling companies drove prices up. In his view tech does the opposite, driving prices down, and today that drives out competition: for example infinite Gmail storage, subsidized photos and effectively free music make it impossible for others to compete. This is his argument, offered with examples but without data.