no analysis feels complete unless it factors both benefits and costs. this post seems lopsided on the cost-side. the author persuasively portrays the negative

no analysis feels complete unless it factors both benefits and costs. this post seems lopsided on the cost-side. the author persuasively portrays the negative effects of a facebook monopoly, but does not objectively delve into the benefits. consider the subsequent disruptions spawned by AT&T research, for example. even though AT&T itself did not commercialize most of these products (e.g., the semi-conductor), can anyone credibly argue AT&T did not foster innovation? similarly, google's search monopoly produced cheaper smartphones, free worldwide communication, and self-driving cars. facebook's monopoly lets it advance research on AI, drones, VR, internet access, and human-to-human communication. it's far too early to judge if facebook harms or helps innovation. perhaps there is enough data to assess google, however. one of google's victims is yelp. if yelp is worth $20B instead of $3B, but we don't have all the benefits of google's massive cash flow, is society better off? if we repeat the process for every google competitor, we can start to engage in an unbiased evaluation of google as a monopolist. to clarify, i'm neither advocating for nor disparaging monopolies. the author is very sharp and one of the best tech analysts today. i'm simply hoping for fair and balanced analyses so we can reach informed conclusions.