> a great US institution

So, too big to fail, but to small to be a monopoly that abuses it's power?

I'm more on your side than most but surely you don't think zero antitrust enforcement is best for our country?

who is to say that it is great. what makes it so, why is that valuable. Is doing more good than harm. that there is even some inherent value in a "great institution". A bunch of smaller companies would probably be better economically and be more innovative.

Ah yes, the great US institution of ad tech. Mass privacy intrusion in the service of selling clicks for a nickel.

> colincowardly

Appropriate last name. So any institution that lies, cheats, and steals their way to top is absolved of all wrongdoing just because they got to the top?

I kinda somewhat reluctantly agree with you, and I think other commenters are missing the point that breaking up Google may allow non-US competitors to rise up and take Google's place on the world stage. Thus, breaking them up is not in the national interest of the US.

Capitalism requires some level of regulation to avoid eating itself.

Bring back Ma Bell and Standard Oil they were great US institutions!

Companies like modern Google should not be permissible in the even firster place.

So because Google monopolizes on a big enough scale, suddenly they are too important to break up? I would argue that if any single company is big enough to where if it were to break up it would be "against the national interest," then it is too big and must be broken up.