> Being a dominant marketplace which takes anti-competitive stances is problematic. Totally agree. The reason I bring up Wal Mart is to illustrate how this is

> Being a dominant marketplace which takes anti-competitive stances is problematic. Totally agree. The reason I bring up Wal Mart is to illustrate how this is essentially click-bait legislation. Wal Mart tore through main street providing retail space for products they liked, also making their own versions and selling for much cheaper, preferencing products, etc. Dominating the marketplace and forcing businesses to close. We called that good capitalism. To my knowledge, Warren has not submitted or voted on a bill in her tenure to break up Wal Mart. However now we are presenting Amazon as a unique type of problem and asking to break it up. With the one chief difference being the perception of fairness in presenting products equally because you can upload the listings yourself and it's on the internet. I'm just trying to figure out why these relatively young, trendy companies, instead of a whole host of other monopolies that are far more important. If the legislation comes down to semantics around an internet "marketplace" vs a retail store, then that begs another question of whether or not that is actually fair, and what the functional difference between the two actually is.