But they do! They main complaint about monopolies is that they're impossible to outcompete.
That's actually a good point. Thanks!
Of course what's a "market" can be defined in a zillion ways, depending on what point you want to make. It's good to remember that "market" is a theoretical construct, not something tangibly real.
That's a straw man. I see no need to assume that a case needs to be made for one or many social networks or online retailers. I understand you think there is one, but I think this is an odd "choice" you believe we are supposed to somehow make as a society through government. Why are we (you) saying we need legislators or courts to decide what the exactly correct number number and size of social networks is? Like it or not, it seems the people have spoken. We want a few large social networks that are owned by publicly traded companies, and many small, esoteric ones very few people have heard about.
> How often are promising young product or service companies bought out by giant companies just to be left to dry on the vine, no longer a threat to their new owners?
They don't have to accept those offers. If they really wanted to "threaten" these companies rather than seeking to be bought, they wouldn't have been bought.
That's a straw man. No one is saying monopolies are immortal. An economy where monopoly usurps monopoly, one after the other in a continuous cycle is a problem, too.
If you want a real debate, make the case that the world wouldn't be better off if these tech giants were split up like Ma Bell was in the 1950's and forced to compete without the benefits of being able to buy out the first hint of competition. Make the case that we're better off having ONE giant social network, ONE giant online retailer. How often are promising young product or service companies bought out by giant companies just to be left to dry on the vine, no longer a threat to their new owners? Is this what a healthy economy looks like?