Amazon provides cloud services to the government now; and Bezos owns the Washington Post. Plus, and perhaps more importantly, the Democrats did not try to pin "Russiagate" allegations on Amazon. Now, Trump kind of dislikes him IIRC, but still - the political climate does not seem favorable to going after Amazon that way.

This isn't whataboutism even though it contains the words "what about". Whataboutism is an attempt to excuse one thing because some other bad actor or event wasn't dealt with properly. It's when you try to discredit an argument by implicitly charging them with some sort of hypocritical stance. I'm simply saying Amazon should be next on the list that they investigate. I'm not trying to say that these are bullshit inquires because Amazon hasn't been investigated, which is what a whataboutism on this would be. I'm saying the opposite - that Facebook and Google should be investigated but so should Amazon.

Be aware of what Whataboutism actually is before warning others about logical fallacies or bad-faith arguments.

What is amazon a near-monopoly in?

Amazon is a trust, not yet a monopoly. There is an inherent conflict of interest, and lack of recourse (forced arbitration), between Amazon marketplace sellers and Amazon the e-commerce store. Likewise between AWS customers and Amazon the e-commerce store and advertising network. By any reasonable consumer standards, AWS should be split off into a separate company. The pervasive surveillance and continual scandals surrounding Ring's handling of user data, when taken in context of Amazon's collection of user data from the e-commerce store, advertising network, Alexa, other Amazon business units, and purchased third party data, mean that Amazon should never have been allowed to acquire Ring in the first place. If the Department of Justice Antitrust Division had not been completely captured by corporate interests, they would be in the process of litigating to undo this acquisition right now.

Have we seen companies get split off in similar circumstances in the past?

Not exactly the same, but in the 90's we almost split up Microsoft to two separate divisions: a company that builds the operating system, and a company that builds user-space applications.

This was because, during the browser wars of the 90s, Microsoft was purposefully gimping competing browsers at the OS level like Netscape Navigator so as to encourage people to use Internet Explorer.

The textbook case studies would be the break up of Bell Telephone Company [1] or Standard Oil [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey...

They're buying competing booksellers, which is by definition anti-competitive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...