What is the steelman defense of being in favor of "little tech" while being against breaking up the biggest tech companies?

musician: gigameshmusic.com | dev: github.com/gigamesh

1. The people arguing for little tech are the biggest investors in said companies

2. General belief that "creative destruction" is a net win for consumers, economic growth in the long run

“in said companies” <- you’re referring to big cos here?

Thats the thing I’m confused by. It seems contradictory.

I’ve heard the argument that breaking up big tech makes it harder for smaller cos to get acquired, but to me that seems like the point: force little cos to keep growing rather than selling to the big guys.

sorry I misread your original cast

being against breaking up big companies

1. government is almost always going after a lagging player, e.g. breaking up google when they are potentially losing their search monopoly to AI

2. breaking up big companies = m&A freeze = fewer exits worse for the investors and on reduces dynamism of startup sector / talent in stagnant companies

3. government goes after the base case, not the right issue, e.g. FTC did not sue Apple over the App Store (since there's a weak case there legally)