Nooo what you are saying communist. I also think so, but each time someone (typically the EU) does something in the direction (e.g. digital market act) the US government, companies and citizens accuse us to be communists, against progress, that we overregulate, that the "free market" regulates by itself, and similar bullshit.
Just because Google built something valuable that doesn't mean the government should take control of it. This line of reasoning also leads to the government taking over YouTube and changing the rules there due to how "important" it is.
The things mega corporations built could be even more valuable (for society) if they didn't intentionally restrict for their own and their shareholders' benefit what you can do with them.
Since they are public companies the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit.
>"Regulating" also doesn't mean "taking shareholders' benefit
Technically true, but if the regulations are just suggestions then they won't accomplish anything. When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting, not just sending them a strongly worded letter.
> the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit
Yes, but there can be other benefits than monetary ones. Besides, I find it rediculous to believe that wealthy people receiving more benefits automatically translates to improvements for the general society.
To add another point: The monetary value these companies create is often only possible because of their monopolistic market distortion. I don't think it can be a net benefit for society when competitors have little to no chance to offer a better product.
> When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting
That's true. In your original comment you also said "government taking over YouTube" which is why I thought we were talking about complete transfer of control à la planned economy, which is normally not the goal of regulations.
