[Cornelius267]

Why does a company need to be a monopoly in order to break them up? In an "ought to" sense, that is.

Facebook has facilitated/amplified quite a bit of awful things that have lead to real world violence, most particularly outside of the United States. Which is saying something, considering their contribution to political polarization in the US.

Whether or not they are a monopoly is orthogonal to the question put forward in this case.

[krapp]

If you're arguing the government should be able to break up any company it likes, for any reason it decides, then you're basically arguing against capitalism, private property, freedom of speech and association, and most of the separation of powers and concerns that democracies are supposed to be built upon.

"ought to" is a dangerous cudgel to put in the hands of a government or a self-righteous mob, and "monopoly" was what everyone was arguing should be the standard, but I guess now it's open season.

[Cornelius267]

> If you're arguing the government should be able to break up any company it likes, for any reason it decides

That's great, because I'm not arguing that. My post does not imply as such either. You are creating a fake argument that is easier for you to argue against.

"Ought to" is the basis of rule of law. By what measure do you decide that a "monopoly" is bad? It has certain outcomes, some positive, some negative, but on balance government in previous generations decided that they are negative.

But once you know that the outcome is negative, what do you do about it? You only take another step and break it apart if you decide that you "ought to" do so. Because you place value in a healthy society, or you place value in non-monopolistic market competition, or you place value in something else. But whatever you choose, in order to justify actually action you inevitably rely on an "ought to."

If the reason for breaking up monopolies is to improve society, in some broad sense, then you could use a similar reason to break up companies that are harmful to society. We do sanction companies that damage the environment, or lie to consumers with false claims, etc.

There is always an "ought to."