the headlines: in his first day in office, president biden has asserted federal control over the fight against coronavirus. he promised to end what he called dismal progress in vaccinating americans, saying 100 million would be immunised in his first 100 days. republicans in the us senate are asking the democrats to put off the trial of former president donald trump until around february 11. house speaker nancy pelosi said the trial would show america hadn't forgotten the assault on capitol hill. european union leaders have decided to introduce tighter travel restrictions for the bloc�*s internal borders to limit the spread of new coronavirus variants. non—essential travel is discouraged and some travellers will be required to take a test before departure.

now on bbc news, hardtalk with stephen sackur. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. can and should anything be done to hold the inexorable rise of the western world's global technology giant? the likes of amazon, google and facebook? 0ver giant? the likes of amazon, google and facebook? over the past decade we have seen these tech titans come to dominate data collection, cloud computing, retail, social media, publishing — the list goes on. but now, there is pushback from antimonopoly lawyers and sceptical politicians. my guest, american lawyer lina khan, is in the vanguard of the movement to tame big tech. but whose interest is she serving? lina

khan in dallas, texas, welcome to hardtalk. khan in dallas, texas, welcome to hardtalk— to hardtalk. thank you for havin: to hardtalk. thank you for having me- _ to hardtalk. thank you for having me. do _ to hardtalk. thank you for having me. do you - to hardtalk. thank you for| having me. do you believe to hardtalk. thank you for - having me. do you believe there is a new momentum _ having me. do you believe there is a new momentum behind - is a new momentum behind the push to tame the big, the giant technology companies in the western world?— western world? yes, i think there absolutely is. - western world? yes, i think there absolutely is. i - western world? yes, i think there absolutely is. i think. western world? yes, i think. there absolutely is. i think we have seen a transformation in public opinion over the last few years and the public case for how these firms have so much power and how they are wielding it in ways that harm our economy and our society and it will only become more apparent such that now we see a wave of lawsuits, anti—trust

lawsuit as well as new regulatory proposals, that would curb their power. but in a funny sort — would curb their power. but in a funny sort of— would curb their power. but in a funny sort of way _ would curb their power. but in a funny sort of way what - would curb their power. but in a funny sort of way what we i a funny sort of way what we have learned through the covid—19 pandemic is just how useful, how incredibly important as technology companies are. i'm thinking of the likes of amazon, apple, google, we perhaps rely on them more now in this very restricted world of lockdowns restricted world of lockd owns than restricted world of lockdowns than we ever have relied upon them before. i than we ever have relied upon them before.— them before. i think that's absolutely _ them before. i think that's absolutely right _ them before. i think that's absolutely right and - them before. i think that's absolutely right and i - them before. i think that's| absolutely right and i think the pandemic has underscored for us is the degree which these firms essentially provide infrastructure for the digital age. these firms control the core infrastructure for both commerce and communications and they are providing very valuable services but it also means that you have a small group of private executives that are ultimately setting the rules of who gets to use the infrastructure and on what

terms, and that approach is historically at odds with how we have treated infrastructure which has always been accountable to public rules and has had to meet a higher set of regulations. but has had to meet a higher set of regulations-_ regulations. but in your daily life, as regulations. but in your daily life. as you _ regulations. but in your daily life, as you are _ regulations. but in your daily life, as you are right - regulations. but in your daily life, as you are right now - regulations. but in your daily life, as you are right now at. life, as you are right now at home in dallas, texas, are you thinking to yourself, as you use your laptop and your smartphone, are you thinking to yourself "0h, smartphone, are you thinking to yourself "oh, my god, the services that i am getting actually don't work, they are utterly dysfunctional and they need to be changed" because i dare say many people watching this around the world are not thinking that.— thinking that. that's a great question- i _ thinking that. that's a great question. i two things. - thinking that. that's a great question. itwo things. 0ne| thinking that. that's a great i question. itwo things. one is question. i two things. one is i think even when services are good for consumers, they can be hurting a whole set of other interests —— i think two things. be it workers on new business formation or democracy at large. and second, you know, it is really difficult to know what we are missing out on. one reason why the us in particular has focused so much on

competition policy because there has been a view that competition and forcing businesses to compete on the merits of their products and services is really one of the best ways to guarantee that consumers and users are getting the best products and services that are available. and when you instead have firms that gain monopoly power and are exercising that monopoly power in ways that inhibit new firms, new competitors from competing on the merits of their own products and services, you know, you can lose years and years of innovation and years and years of superior products that users never had access to because the incumbents, the giants, knock them out. so i think that can be quite factual to get out so it is something thatis to get out so it is something that is real to consider. i want to dig deeper into that notion, the competition is not working and is not delivering for the public and specific sort of ways in which you can make the case a little later but i do actually want to track back just for

but i do actually want to track backjust for a short but i do actually want to track back just for a short while but i do actually want to track backjust for a short while and ask you how you got into this because your back story is fascinating. you came to the us from the uk as a kid with your family. you went through university, i believe he thought for a while you wanted to be a journalist and then you got very preoccupied with the law but particularly with anti—trust law —— you thought that. and the way that the us capitalist system works is regulated by law. what drove yourfascination regulated by law. what drove your fascination with anti—trust? your fascination with anti-trust?— your fascination with anti-trust? ., ., , anti-trust? so one of the first “obs i anti-trust? so one of the first jobs i had _ anti-trust? so one of the first jobs i had after _ anti-trust? so one of the first jobs i had after university - anti-trust? so one of the first jobs i had after university was as a policy researcher and journalist and my beat was to document how markets and economies across the us economy had really evolved over decades. so i did these deep dives into all sorts of sectors, including agriculture, chicken farming, the seed industry, the airline industry, the book publishing industry, rental cars, and what became clear after doing these deep

dives is that there had been a systemic trend across the us economy towards increasing concentration across the board. so across sectors, markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies. and this was creating all sorts of problems for us as consumers but also for us as workers, as citizens. it has contributed to a decline in new business formation. here was this a systemic problem across the economy and it was interesting to encounter because the us has a set of anti—trust, antimonopoly laws on the books and so, i got really deep into researching how it was that on the one hand, we had all of these laws that were designed to prevent the exact situation that we were now confronting and that led me to understand how, in the us, we have undergone this wholesale ideological transformation of how we view and enforce the anti—trust laws. let how we view and enforce the anti-trust laws.— anti-trust laws. let me stop ou anti-trust laws. let me stop you there — anti-trust laws. let me stop| you there because i think this

is really important. what you appear to believe is that the way in which the us government and the courts have interpreted anti—trust laws changed fundamentally in and around the 19605 fundamentally in and around the 1960s and 70s and became much more driven by a very simple notion of whether the consumer, the customer, was being served in terms of price more than anything else and as long as that was the case, as long as the customer was getting a decent low price and it appeared to be the customer was being well served, then anti—trust laws did not come into play and your contention is that there is more to it than low price? am i right? that's right. foundational, the us anti—trust laws were passed in order to curb concentrations of economic power. there was a recognition that in the same way that concentrations of political power, say, in aching, would undermine democracy, the concentration of economic power in the hands of

industrial titans would also undermine democracy —— a king. and so there were these democratic roots how anti—trust laws were passed and how they were enforced. when we underwent this revolution instead, to focus the anti—trust laws on consumer welfare, effectively they became focused on efficiency and so the idea was that if companies were emerging that they could promise they would lower prices, that they will produce more goods and services, that means there were no other problems. but services, that means there were no other problems.— no other problems. but surely ou no other problems. but surely you cannot — no other problems. but surely you cannot argue _ no other problems. but surely you cannot argue that - no other problems. but surely you cannot argue that the - no other problems. but surelyj you cannot argue that the sort of service being delivered, for example by amazon, which has become a real target company of yours, you cannot argue that their services not both efficient low cost, which is precisely why tens and tens of millions of people, notjust in the us but right around the world, have turned to emma's on in the face of many, many alternatives for online retail and retail shopping —— have turned to amazon. they go there because it is relatively cheap and efficient and that is

surely a success story. i think it's worth _ surely a success story. i think it's worth interrogating - surely a success story. i think it's worth interrogating what l it's worth interrogating what we mean when we say and is on is efficient. there is one thing that is operational efficiency and there's another thing when it is basicallyjust increased bargaining power over retailers, over brands and over third party merchants. i think there is an open question as to whether consumer prices have fallen. amazon goods and services, you know, prices change hundreds of times a day and so there is kind of an instability of prices that limits our ability to do one on one comparisons. crosstalk. it isn't the ultimate _ one comparisons. crosstalk. it isn't the ultimate arbiter - one comparisons. crosstalk. it isn't the ultimate arbiter with - isn't the ultimate arbiter with what the consumer does and they turned to amazon and they have other choices and there are many other online retailers in most capitalist economic models across the world. and people choose amazon because they like what it offers. i'm just struggling to see how, in a competitive marketplace which still, to me, it looks like it is, you can claim that amazon is, you can claim that amazon is reaching anti—trust rules.

so amazon in the us captures more than 50% of all online commerce. that's a very significant amount. and during the pandemic it has only increased. it also, importantly, not only sells its own products as a first party retailer but also serves as a host to third party merchants and there has been terrific journalism showing how amazon actually exploits those third party merchants in order to, you know, basically mine marketplace for information that it then uses to actually, you know, directly compete with those businesses and demote them in its rankings and so i think there is a real question here about, you know, whether these third parties are able to compete on a level playing field. you know, the real essence of competition is the question of whether you can compete on the merits of your own product. so if you have a third party merchants that introduces a new, say, vacuum cleaner, 50% of online sales

are made through amazon so it has to sell on amazon and all of a sudden amazon sees the sales of this vacuum cleaner are off the charts. what it does often times is uses that information to go create a direct replica and then all of a sudden, the replica is number one in the rankings and this original merchant that took the risk is nowhere to be seen. this is an age—old argument and it goes back to the supreme courtjudge lewis brandeis, a century ago, and his phrase about the curse of bigness and you just do not like big success, lost corporation, it seems, and the big tech companies with $1 trillion values these days are the biggest of all but is it enough to want to bring them down just because they are very big and very successful?— because they are very big and very successful? two things. i think there — very successful? two things. i think there is _ very successful? two things. i think there is actually - very successful? two things. i think there is actually ample l think there is actually ample evidence that these firms have actually not grown to the

heights that they have simply through competing on the merits. in the us as well as in the uk we have a series of competition rules that clarify what is fair conduct, what is pro competitive conduct and what is unfair conduct or anti—competitive conduct, and so if you are a grocery store and a new grocery store emerges across the street, if you go and burn down that store, that is not considered fair competition, there are all sorts of laws that limit what you can engage in. i think we have seen from the lawsuits filed in the us recently, in particular against facebook and google, is that at key moments, these firms engaged in predatory and coercive tactics that were designed to maintain their dominance and squash rivals, ratherthan their dominance and squash rivals, rather than compete on the merits and so i think those are the questions that we really need to be asking. separately, i do think we are at a stage of assessing whether these firms are now providing essential infrastructure to us as citizens, as consumers, as businesses, and if so traditionally we have applied a very different set of rules to

infrastructure, right? the railroads which were also monopolistic 100 and years ago, we require them to abide by nondiscrimination rules and rate caps that limited how much they could charge because we understood when companies are playing a gatekeeper role, they can use the gatekeeper power and —— in all sorts of predatory and coercive ways —— 100 or 120 years ago. so even if we will not break them up we need to apply a set of rules that limit how they can use their power.— that limit how they can use their ower. ,, ,, �* ~ . their power. crosstalk. which raises the question _ their power. crosstalk. which raises the question whether - raises the question whether your view of what should happen will actually happen, i.e., your view of what should happen willactually happen, i.e., is the us government really ready for a very big fight with the technology giants who wield power and influence in the united states today. you spend some time working inside the federal trade commission which has a key role to play here so what do you believe today, do you think right now, the us government is ready for that kind of a showdown? the us

government _ kind of a showdown? the us government has _ kind of a showdown? the us government has already - kind of a showdown? the us - government has already entered that kind of showdown. the justice department in october filed a landmark lawsuit against google, the federal trade commission in december filed a landmark case against facebook. we also have somewhere between 48—50 state attorneys general that have brought their own separate lawsuits to, against google and one against facebook so we are already in the throes of this fight when it comes to anti—trust litigation —— two against google. it is not clear how how the government is going to press this and it is not clear whether they are going to press it all the way to calling for the breakup of some of these companies. a professor at colombia law school, who you know well, argues the only remedy here is to break up companies like facebook, for example. facebook being sued on the basis that it has gone too far in its monopolistic practices by

taking over whatsapp and instagram, timothy wu says the only way is to force facebook to relinquish brands is like whatsapp and instagram. do you believe that can and will happen?— believe that can and will hauen? , ., ., , happen? there is no doubt the government — happen? there is no doubt the government is _ happen? there is no doubt the government is requesting - happen? there is no doubt the government is requesting in i government is requesting in that report that facebook be forced to divest whatsapp and instagram. the government is already pushing for the breakup. i think we have to see how the arguments unfold in court and what remedy ultimately the court decides in this case. that said, you know, antitrust lawsuits are only one path to achieving breakup. you can also achieve breakup through legislation, which in the past the us has done again when dealing with infrastructure industries, be it railroads, telecoms firms, banks, and so if lawsuits do not get us there, i think there is a question about whether new

laws good. is a question about whether new laws good-— laws good. yeah. but the point is, one laws good. yeah. but the point is. one looks — laws good. yeah. but the point is, one looks at _ laws good. yeah. but the point is, one looks at joe _ laws good. yeah. but the point is, one looks at joe biden - laws good. yeah. but the point is, one looks at joe biden and. is, one looks atjoe biden and what he has said about big tech and the need for government to intervene, to change the rules of the game. his signals are quite mixed. for example, those who know best say his favourite pic to run antitrust in the department ofjustice is renata hesser, who used to work for one of the tech giants and in the past has talked about as i'm in a positive way, saying it has added hundreds of billions of dollars to the us economy —— in a positive way. doesn't sound like joe economy —— in a positive way. doesn't sound likejoe biden's top team will be as in on this as you are. top team will be as in on this as you are-— as you are. it's a great question- _ question. i think we are all eagerly awaiting to see who he picks for that —year—old. public advocacy groups in the

us i worried it could go to someone who has a history of going and representing those companies. going and representing those companies-— going and representing those companies. going and representing those comanies. . ., ., ~ ., companies. what do you think of renata hesse. _ companies. what do you think of renata hesse. "the _ companies. what do you think of renata hesse. "the reason - renata hesse. "the reason people use google search is because they like it better." which goes back to the argument we were having earlier about consumer choice and about what people actually do. she doesn't sound like a woman who is determined to go after any of these companies. i determined to go after any of these companies.— these companies. i think that argument _ these companies. i think that argument in _ these companies. i think that argument in particular- these companies. i think that argument in particular is - these companies. i think that argument in particular is one | argument in particular is one that has now been significantly rebutted by the evidence. the uk's competition and markets authority did this fantastic report, very closely studying the search market and search advertising market in particular and noted all the ways in which google's dominance inhibits competition on its merits, and it's not

just that users like google better and they go to google for that reason, but google has this to medically deprived rivals of the type of traffic and data that would allow them to compete on their merits. i do think that view is increasingly out of date and not really corresponding to the facts and realities we are seeing on the ground at. um? facts and realities we are seeing on the ground at. why do ou think seeing on the ground at. why do you think in _ seeing on the ground at. why do you think in europe, _ seeing on the ground at. why do you think in europe, for- you think in europe, for example, there appears to be a much greater readiness to hit these companies hired and very soon, for example, the european competition commissioner, has said the digital markets act and the other legislation that the commission is pushing forward will involve a willingness to impose "structural remedies, divestitures, that sort of thing." she has been very explicit with the stick rather than the carrot. why? is it because in europe they are less

pressured by the financial clout of these big, american tech giants?— tech giants? it's a good question- _ tech giants? it's a good question. and - tech giants? it's a good question. and you - tech giants? it's a good l question. and you know, tech giants? it's a good i question. and you know, i tech giants? it's a good - question. and you know, i would say these giants have so much at stake, that they are really able to push through a lot of money in all sorts of jurisdictions. europe has been quite clear eyed about the problem. the european commission has investigated and brought lord suits —— lawsuits against google three times now. i think the key issue they run into is the problem of remedy. in each of those cases the remedy ultimately ended up being quite weak and i think thatis being quite weak and i think that is what has pushed the commission in order to argue for broader market wide rules, and will be interesting to see what happens there.- what happens there. that's turned the _ what happens there. that's turned the focus _ what happens there. that's turned the focus from - what happens there. that's turned the focus from the i what happens there. that's i turned the focus from the raw economic of these companies to their power as content providers, well, some would say

publishers, although they do not like that phrase. it has come into the focus —— into sharp focus in the last four years through the donald trump presidency and the ending of the trump presidency, and with trump finally being taken off twitter and facebook. then the right wing conservative social media platform parler effectively being shut down because it lost its animals on server is. in this various —— in these various different ways, where you happy, if i may say so, as a progressive person that these things happen? 0r that these things happen? or were you extremely worried? because it pointed to the power of big tech, the unaccountable power of big tech to decide what gets published and what does not? i what gets published and what does not? ., �* , does not? i think it's quite coherent _ does not? i think it's quite coherent to _ does not? i think it's quite coherent to think - does not? i think it's quite coherent to think that - does not? i think it's quite | coherent to think that both facebook and twitter and belatedly youtuber did the right thing to promote donald

trump's messages, and their ability to do so can be a problem for democracy. but those messages had helped inside a deadly insurrection. it also demonstrated the remarkable way in which private power can govern the public sphere. i think the question of whether any given instance, these firms do or do not remove harmful messages is besides the point. the question is really who is setting the rules? is democratically accountable public officials or a small number of private executives? right. doesn't give you because that angela merkel, alexei navalny, tony blair, all of these individuals expressed deep alarm that twitter, facebook, which unilaterally took donald trump off their platform, there is a real issue here of freedom of expression, is there not? who actually

controls the way in which information flows in the 21st century? i information flows in the 21st centu ? ., information flows in the 21st centu ? ~ ., , information flows in the 21st centu ? ~ ., century? i think those are the central questions that - century? i think those are the central questions that we - century? i think those are the central questions that we are | central questions that we are grappling with, right? the reason there was so much alarm at the unilateral ability of these firms to cut off the president of the united states is because these firms are now serving as foreign communications infrastructure, right? if there were adequate competition, if there were real alternatives, then i think you would have seen —— would not have seen the same level of alarm. i5 have seen the same level of alarm. , , , , have seen the same level of alarm. , , , alarm. is it because they are actin: alarm. is it because they are acting like — alarm. is it because they are acting like publishers - alarm. is it because they are acting like publishers and i alarm. is it because they are i acting like publishers and they are making editorial decisions injudging content? is it time for them to be treated as publishers under us law, which they never have been in the past, which is one law incredibly important and a bone of contention. i incredibly important and a bone of contention.— of contention. i think the time is absolutely _ of contention. i think the time is absolutely right _ of contention. i think the time is absolutely right to - is absolutely right to reconsider whether the section 230 regime of the us that we have had that exempts these firms from liability for the content that they host, whether thatis content that they host, whether that is still right. i think we have seen that, you know, in many ways it doesn't make sense

anymore, especially given these firms' business models, facebook and google's in particular incentivise them to promote people because max beach, aids beach, —— people's hate speech, propaganda and so on, and that should be considered when discussing whether they should be liable. will these giants be with us in their current form in the size they currently are, or even bigger, in ten years' time or not? �* , . bigger, in ten years' time or not? �*, ., ., , ., ., not? it's a great question. you know, ithink— not? it's a great question. you know, i think it _ not? it's a great question. you know, i think it will— not? it's a great question. you know, i think it will really - know, i think it will really depend on the courage of governments to take on these firms and ensure their core infrastructure is working for the public and notjust a small number of private identities. and you would think therefore the answer is they will be, brought down, tamed, or not? i think we are at a point where it seems like the us at least

is only interested in doing so and we have a strong history of doing so. the first gilded age where we don't with the first year of big monopolies, so i am hoping we can draw on that tradition and do so again. lina khan, tradition and do so again. lina khan. thank — tradition and do so again. lina khan, thank you _ tradition and do so again. lina khan, thank you very - tradition and do so again. lina khan, thank you very much for joining me on hardtalk. thank ou for joining me on hardtalk. thank you for having _ joining me on hardtalk. thank you for having me. _ hello there. flooding continues to be of concern but the weather certainly isn't going to make things any worse over the next few days. the current situation — well, the number of flood and severe flood warnings has just started to edge down. so, things are slowly improving for some communities. 0ther rivers though taking longer to respond. for example, the 0use in york. well, that's not going to peak

until later in the day on friday. so, for some, it could still get worse before it gets better. lots of snow around of course. that snow still with us at the moment across the high ground in scotland. still some strong winds and further accumulations. otherwise, it's a cold night with the frost. the showers, there is a risk of icy stretches dotted around the country. so, it will be another cold start to the day as we edge into friday. cold north—westerly winds with us pulling in this chilly air. it will be a day of sunshine and showers for sure, but some of the showers could be quite interesting. one of those particular showers that i've got my beady eye on is this clump of cloud you can see herejust west of ireland. that's, i think, likely to push across ireland and then work into wales through the afternoon, and probably into the midlands as we head towards the evening. more about that in a moment. i think broadly speaking though for most of us on friday, it's going to be a fine day with sunshine. again, there will be showers around, wintry at times, a bit of snow mixed

in still across the north—west but conditions improving compared with recent days, i think it's fair to say. then, that clump of showers, well, i think it might go in across parts of wales as we head through the afternoon. could be heavy showers. if they're heavy enough, we might well see some sleet and some snow mixed in with that, and then that clump of showers if it's still there may well edge into parts of the midlands for the evening time. there is a bit of uncertainty about that but that might be something that you see during the day on friday. now, saturday's weather, again it's a showery kind of set—up. showers wintry again, most frequent across the north—west but we do have a low pressure system just going in close to the south coast of england. that has rain and snow mixed in with it and it's not far away from south—east england. so, we'll have to keep a close eye on developments there — if there are any. for most of the weekend, though, it isjust going to be a sunshine and showers kind of set—up. 0n into saturday evening and night—time though, we've got another trough that's going to be moving in. and wales and is more likely to bring a bit of snow even

there could be some changes in the position but nevertheless, a few of you will be seeing some snow at some point during the weekend.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm victoria fritz. president biden warns americans the worst of the pandemic is yet to come, as he unveils his strategy to tackle the disease. al plan starts with mounting an aggressive, safe, and effective vaccination campaign to meet our goal of administering 100 million shots. google threatens to withdraw its search engine from australia if the government passes a law forcing tech giants to pay local media for their content. japan says preparations for the delayed 0lympics are going ahead, despite reports the games could be cancelled. and the long journey home.

the nepalese climbers who conquered k2 and have a tale to tell.