That’s sad I can’t agree with Trump on this because I know that he’s doing it for completely the wrong reasons. He sees them as political enemies and he wants them suppressed/controlled. I don’t believe he actually cares how big they are. That’s just the excuse.
This isn’t a “stopped clock is right twice a day“ thing.
You could come up with other reasons that I don’t necessarily agree with, say “tax dodging“, that I wouldn’t mind. If I agree with the goal and reason is just, even if it’s not my reason, that could be fine. There was something relatively small Trump did that I agreed with on these lines, though I don’t remember what it was.
This is a pure authoritarian threat. You don’t tie my line so I’ll find some justification to make you’re life hell.
Peoples over romatezised history of Anti-Trust is ridicouluse. It was mostly a way for buissness that were outcometed based on price to try to use government power to their advantage.
The fist state level Anti-Trust law was basically butchers who were angry at the invention of the frozzen rail transport and slaughterhouses.
And when you want to talk about Anti-Trust on the internet you should actually know how it is applied today.
Anti-competetive actions are simply not going to make an Anti-Trust case. An Anti-Trust case requeres clear harm to consumers.
So if Whole Food would triple its prices because nobody else can compete in that market then you might have an Anti-Trust case.
Most of your list is simple "Things I dont like".
I think this is undeniable in practice, but Google could claim that because Android also has F-Droid and the like, it allows multiple app stores.
"Of the 1m green cards (permanent residence visas) issued [in the US] each year, only 15% are granted because of the applicants' skills, notes John Dearie of Startups USA, a pressure group; in Australia the figure is 68%."
[1] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/25/governments-ne...
Except that to him and his supporters, "merit" is really just code for "skin color". They don't want Hispanics, period. To the point where they are apparently willing to go after natural-born Hispanic citizens on the sketchy basis that they might be fraudulent (of course actually bothering to investigate isn't necessary).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/us...
Now why do I think they deserve Sherman Antitrust investigations (and IANAL).
All of them have control over people's different dimensions of data that nobody has.
- Amazon: With acquisition of Whole Foods they control retail like nobody. Yes, Walmart is trying to make a dent. So does best buy. But they have pretty much monopoly over e-books business when it comes to publishing. Apple already had eBooks settlement.
- Google: They make or break Internet with control over gateway (Chrome), Search (gatekeeper, and promoting their own content) and monetization (Google Doubleclick/Adx is majority of share in ad-tech market for on-walled garden s, good luck competing against it). Given their control and 1B users across multiple platforms they constantly engage in anti-competitive behavior. Read about rise of header bidding and how AdX used to anti-competitive in ad-tech. Google's ad-tech division needs to thoroughly investigated over anti-competitive behavior.
Secondly, Android is free but Google has iron grip over Android using play store. I think gated App Stores are inherently anti-competitive and not in best interests of users and developers. OS should allow multiple app stores and DoJ should go after this. Fortnite already tried to highlight this issue.
Facebook - I think Facebook might be spared as for social they are not the only platform. But given their data scandals
Apple - As I said app stores are inherently anti-competitive. Same thing applies here like Android.
Anyway, these companies can make or break business with their anti-competitive practices. As discussed in another comment, Sherman Antitrust Act doesn't apply in monopoly positions but against businesses that may stifle overall competitive behavior. I strongly believe these companies are even more scarier in telcos as they are wolves in sheep's clothing and always try to play nice.