This is a highly political piece. It suggests that smaller companies are not effective and is wielding that idea to suggest that Facebook should be broken up. F

This is a highly political piece. It suggests that smaller companies are not effective and is wielding that idea to suggest that Facebook should be broken up. Facebook is naturally going to do whatever they can to hold on and given the way their business functions, they need to be large. Microsoft did the same thing in the 90s. Even if companies should be smaller for greater effect, it's possible that things have shifted due to the natural growth curve of technology, as opposed to there being a deliberate cultural shift. For example, Ford was once a small company, disrupted the world, grew to be its size, and in general (barring companies like Tesla that are also competing with relatively radical new technologies and will grow to be a large size barring enhanced robotics [another emerging technology]) it is necessary for companies to be large to compete. In other words, it seems to me there its always David versus Goliath; David is the old, Goliath is the new. Until there are new technologies, we are looking at Goliaths.