> What I have said is mostly classical economics 101. If the point is Google could innovate faster if it is split into 10 companies, Google has all the incentive to do it today or alternatively for a Google competitor to split itself into smaller companies in order to beat Google. In either case, when people are free to chose, they will over time make the most efficient choices. This is part of the reason why markets tend to allocate resources better than government folks.

That feels like a conclusion from flawed first principles. Google is in the game of getting maximum reward for minimum effort/cost, not innovating for innovation's sake. If the cheapest path to that reward is innovation, they'll do that (& they spend many $$ on that because of history lessons - don't get me wrong on that point). However, if the cheapest path is an alternative decision, they'll do that instead (e.g. spending many $$ paying people to work on tax loopholes). Your position ignores the fact that being the 1T gorilla in the room gives them significant advantages that, to them, are worth the disadvantage of slower innovation. Business is all about tradeoffs after all. For example, as the 1T gorilla in the room underpinning a good chunk of the US economy & employing many people, you can:

* Throw your weight around more easily with regulatory bodies & lobby for laws/government business that you would have a harder time with as a smaller company
* You have a stronger reputation as being a "reliable" business ("nobody got fired for buying IBM")
* You can instill regulatory roadblocks for strategic industries you wish to defend
* You can tackle ever bigger problems that only exist because you're trying to grow the company ever bigger (but that don't necessarily provide societal value)
* You can stifle competition through acquisitions (Instagram, DoubleClick, etc)
* You can slurp up all available talent that could pose a threat
* You can engage in collusion with competitors to retain a market leadership position
* You can engage in collusion to control the employee market wages (see Google, Apple & others colluding to suppress Web Browser developer salaries & other cases that have reappeared as the fines these companies have paid have not outweighed the benefits of engaging in these tactics).

etc etc. These examples aren't hypothetical. They're easily observed by just passively observing business history over your own lifetime or reading up on it a little. For example, look at the widespread wage suppression and non-competes tech companies have engaged in over the years.

> Again, this does not need empirical evidence (even though there is plenty) but mostly basics of classical economics.

I challenge this statement. To me your theory and my empirical evidence are in direct conflict. The scientific method encourages you to question your theory or to back it up with concrete evidence that the world works the way you are modelling it. Your argument is kind of like the high school physics problem of "let's ignore friction and wind resistance" except worse because to me it's more akin to arguing for Aristotle's bodies of motion when you already have a lot of experimental evidence showing the model is incomplete/wrong.

> I tried to read book excerpts from the Stanford professors and it appeared to be complete BS vending. Arguments like "Big Tech is too big" ,"Big tech has too much power" etc. simply does not make sensible principles as much as they make excellent rhetorical points.

I agree with you there but I think you're not presenting the arguments in the best light (independent of whether or not these profs make them). Typically the stronger versions of the arguments go something like:
* Big tech is acquiring companies before they can compete. This both hurts innovation & the US economy in the long term because these big tech companies are extremely efficient at their own growth, but that's not necessarily yielding the broader benefits needed by the economy for productivity/innovation.
* Big tech media companies aren't responsible stewards for their platforms. They've grabbed the highly lucrative side of the business (ads) while pushing costs as negative externalities (misinformation, manipulate & malicious ads, scams, etc) through intentionally or incompetent policies and practices. Indeed, maybe less consolidation in the media space across the board would be better (not just in the Internet) so that issues are more diffuse rather than being hyper concentrated.
* Big tech companies are colluding with each other in ways that are counterproductive to the industry and the broader economy, indirectly raising costs through their domination of the industries they compete in. There are numerous instances of such collusion and in the past we've punished other companies trying to do similar things in other industries.

I think "too big" or "too much power" is used as short-hand for these (& many other) specific problems that can't be fully enumerated in interviews. If the professors fail to make a more cogent argument in the books as you've claimed, then that's a valid critique, but I wouldn't base that assumption just from excerpts.