To be fair, even if a solid 100% of wealth gains went to tech companies, it's doubtful that this solid 100% of wealth gains went to Google and Facebook alone.

To be fair, even if a solid 100% of wealth gains went to tech companies, it's doubtful that this solid 100% of wealth gains went to Google and Facebook alone. And in any case, that's not the argument being made for breaking them up. The argument is that Google and Facebook are controlling the online ad market. That the ad market on the internet is effectively a duopoly. I would say, from a layman's perspective, that the ad market duopoly argument has some merit. But not being an expert, I don't know A - how deeply Google and Facebook concert to control the market? (if at all?) Nor do I know B - Is a duopoly as dangerous as a monopoly in the eyes of the Supreme Court? (ie - What is the magic number of majority market participants necessary for the courts to say a market is "competitive"? Is it 3? or 5? Or 2?) For instance, when this talk surfaced about Microsoft, it never went anywhere in part because 2 participants in the consumer desktop OS market were thought to be more than enough. Even though the second participant was relatively weak. (Apple).