Controversial, sure, however I presume it is controversial because it has become a common trajectory to launch with an intent to eventually be acquired by a bigger player. Has this always been a common intent of new businesses?

Depends. What are the arguments for a company holding shares in another?

If the purpose a company X has shares in Y and Z to diversify their income stream then perhaps non-voting stocks would be suitable.

If a company holds shares in another company because they are somewhat dependent on it being run and facilitated in a certain way, it makes sense that they'd want to have an influential share but if they are rich enough to acquire such a stake then they are probably a valuable enough customer that the company they depend on won't do much that upends the entire business relationship. Or is that naive of me?

If all big mergers are banned and if all megacorps are banned from acquisitions, then maybe also ban the idea that companies should have voting rights in other companies? Now, a wealthy enough CEO might sidestep that as a non-corporate entity, and may do so by some degrees of separation if they themselves are judicially blocked from such holdings so I don't have a ready-made fix for that.

Yeah, my first thought reading the article was “this will encourage big places to buy small places even more quickly so nobody else can get above the $10B line.” So some other rules would have to be set on smaller acquisitions.

There will be an accounting scramble to establish being above the line, then games and political lobbying to keep or move the bar in a favorable direction.

Owners of Standard Oil made more from the stocks of the companies spun off than they ever would had it been allowed to continue. That's one example of a breakup that led to massive growth in jobs, competition, and an entire host of supporting companies.