It seems like the overwhelming response to this article is that the author is nit-picking. I'd argue that the main point of the article is to drive to first-pr

It seems like the overwhelming response to this article is that the author is nit-picking. I'd argue that the main point of the article is to drive to first-principles: How did these giants get so big? What is fundamentally different about tech companies that makes current antitrust legislation ineffective? Antitrust legislation and enforcement has had several "generations" of philosophy in the United States: - 1890s-1970s Sherman Antitrust Act targeting American Standard Oil. In this era enforcement focused on how a company practiced its business, with a chief goal being maximal competition. - 1970s-now After The Antitrust Paradox [1] was published by Robert Bork, enforcement shifted to "consumer welfare," with the chief goal being maximal welfare. (Planet Money is currently doing a series [2] that covers this) I believe Ben Thompson is advocating that a new generation of philosophy needs to begin, because "consumer welfare" cannot be directly applied to these companies, their unfair advantages, or how to prevent the next "wave." Indeed, their size is a direct result of their serving "consumer welfare" (ie, consumers choose them because their offerings are best). Nitpicking or not, I'd prefer the result of the current discussion to result in actionable change, and I believe the points in this article (ie, the "nitpicks" it makes) are required for such a result. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Th... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox [2] - https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/antitrust-1-standard-oil https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/anti...