Are you asking "why is a monopoly bad?" or "why do acquisitions representing large market share promote monopoly?" The 2nd one is quite obvious. Afterwards, th

Are you asking "why is a monopoly bad?" or "why do acquisitions representing large market share promote monopoly?" The 2nd one is quite obvious. Afterwards, there is less competition and the aquire has increased their market share, buying power, control of a supply chain, platform, infrastructure or some other market dominance position. The 1st one... Do you prefer a theoretical reason? Empirical examples? rhetorical, political, philosophical? There are lots of reasons why monopolies are harmful. The legislation itself, and the reasoning behind it was liberal-economics... ie "capitalism." Capitalism, from a pro-captialist perspective, works because of a superior price system. Monopolies break price systems, whether they are public or private monopolies. There are a lot of other reasons too. Since this is about digital monopolies and "platform" is a primary form of market dominance.... Compare to WWW-vs-AOL. One was a closed, private, system where a single companies dominates a primary bottleneck. One was open. Do you think the WWW would have achieved what the WWW achieved if they had won that platform war?