> They're literally paying for new competitors to spring up!
They're paying for competitors to spring up and then disappear, which does nobody but the investors (and maybe the founders) any good whatsoever.
Alternative idea: let them buy, but levy a 100% tax on the acquisition amount. The proceeds can fund development of truly open alternatives, or be paid to the users as recompense for their privacy loss, or perhaps just used to make regular people's lives better. That would discourage anti-competitive acquisitions, and even if they do occur at least somebody besides rentiers would get something out of it.
That hurts investments and tech advancement because it removes acquisitions as an exit strategy. It also favors the larger incumbents because they can afford the tax, thus moving markets more towards a tech oligopoly.
I'm not suggesting such a tax generally, just in the cases that people are already so keen to regulate in other (IMO even more harmful/ridiculous) ways.
They're paying for competitors to spring up and then disappear, which does nobody but the investors (and maybe the founders) any good whatsoever.
Alternative idea: let them buy, but levy a 100% tax on the acquisition amount. The proceeds can fund development of truly open alternatives, or be paid to the users as recompense for their privacy loss, or perhaps just used to make regular people's lives better. That would discourage anti-competitive acquisitions, and even if they do occur at least somebody besides rentiers would get something out of it.