sure, but the problem is that there are no legitimately recognized avenues for doing so. politicians won't want to be seen as "anti business" because they know

sure, but the problem is that there are no legitimately recognized avenues for doing so. politicians won't want to be seen as "anti business" because they know who funds their campaigns. non-elected regulators are already captured, so there's no movement possible there. workers have no real power at present -- and, if they tried to exercise power anyway, they'd be branded as radicals without any legitimate perspective on policy. consumer boycotts are a thing of the distant past, and are unlikely to reach the size necessary to inflict the requisite amount of damage in any event. smaller competitors may be living hand-to-mouth as far as their businesses are concerned, so they're in no shape to take on social or economic change. all of this is BEFORE we think about whether amazon is a genuine monopoly that threatens competition in rigorous terms. i'm of the view that it is monopolistic in its intent, but the existence of a plurality of options for any given commodity which it produces/sells makes it hard to build a case for it being a living monopoly if you're talking to someone who is pro-amazon or pro-big business.