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

Still feel like this is the best idea for squaring the circle, yet nobody in gov or media talks about it:

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

Still feel like this is the best idea for squaring the circle, yet nobody in gov or media talks about it:

https://moores.samaltman.com/

Building /bright-moments - minting onchain art IRL | /purple #15 | FID 129 #magikarp

A general belief isn’t really an argument. I feel like people in tech need to offer more actionable solutions to resolve the problem of large portions of big company users/customers passionately hating the companies. Instead, we have a lot of founders and VCs playing victim.

i believe a general belief in non-interventionist free markets supports both of these positions

big tech make lots of acquisitions which is a v important exit route for little tech which allows investors to take more risks in funding great teams

big tech acq: the original RPGF

“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.

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

Big tech needs guardrails to prevent monopoly power but breaking up is an ineffective guardrail

What Phil said, free market should mean that innovation and good products are not stifled - whether it be from the government or large corporations engaging in monopolistic practises

Big tech enables innovation while  little tech ensures resilience and diverse competition.🤷🏻‍♀️