Why Washington's Fight With Big Tech Doesn't Worry Me

In a rare moment of unity, American politicians seem to agree on one thing: big tech is bad. From Senator Josh Hawley on the right to Senator Elizabeth Warren on the left, the calls to rein in or break up major tech companies are getting louder. They’re tapping into a classic David-and-Goliath story that plays well with the public.

As someone focused on long-term , however, this political chest-beating doesn’t frighten me. In fact, all the noise coming out of Washington about regulation and trust-busting has consistently created fantastic buying opportunities. When the market gets anxious about an industry, it tends to offload shares at a discount. For those with a clear thesis, this is a welcome event. There are three key reasons why I believe big tech has little to fear from government intervention.

First, the legal arguments for an antitrust breakup are surprisingly weak. Second, the daily, habit-forming connection between consumers and these platforms is incredibly difficult for any government to sever. And third, even if regulators succeed in breaking up these giants, the individual component parts would likely be worth even more on their own.

A Pragmatic View of a Polarizing Issue

Let me be clear: I’m not a cheerleader for these digital businesses. My goal is to be a dispassionate analyst, and I see their flaws. I remember when Google promised never to sell ads around search results—a promise that has been thoroughly broken. But a broken promise isn't a broken law. I also watch for signs of “rent-seeking,” which is when a company tries to charge for nothing instead of innovating. Intuit has admitted to this with its TurboTax division, and it's a lazy business practice that the free market eventually punishes when customers leave.

Our society has laws against anticompetitive behavior, and government should act as a strong referee to ensure a fair game. But capitalism is a brutal arena. Companies that abuse their customers often face punishment not from regulators, but from a mass exodus of the customers themselves. This is especially true today, when technology changes so quickly. If Google and Apple were truly abusing their users, those users would simply find alternatives.

The Flaws in the Antitrust Argument

Under current U.S. law, an antitrust case has to prove that “consumer welfare” has been harmed, usually through higher prices or fewer choices. This framework just doesn't fit the modern tech world. Google and Facebook are free, and Amazon’s “everything store” gives us more choices than we know what to do with.

A new wave of trustbusters, like FTC Chair Lina M. Khan, argues that this standard is outdated. They believe we should act now to prevent potential future harm, suggesting that Amazon’s long-term strategy is predatory pricing. This fundamentally misunderstands how tech giants operate. Amazon built its empire on a promise of being faster, cheaper, and better. To suddenly start gouging customers would destroy the trust it has spent decades building. Understanding this dynamic is a core principle of .

Similarly, the argument that big tech is no longer innovating is absurd. These companies are pouring billions into everything from augmented reality to fighting aging. If they were truly crushing competition, you wouldn’t see a thriving ecosystem of other companies. Shopify, for instance, has become an $85 billion giant by empowering the and turning a into a real . The number of unicorns—a valued at over $1 billion—has skyrocketed from a dozen to over 750 in just eight years. That doesn't sound like a stifled market.

Even If They Break Up, They Win

With critics like Khan and Tim Wu in positions of power, some form of regulation is likely. But it’s hard to imagine how regulators can interfere with the billions of daily, voluntary interactions people have with these platforms.

My deal with Google is simple: in exchange for free search, they can show me ads for shoes after I’ve looked for shoes online. I'll take that trade. I find those ads more useful than the random beer and soda commercials I see on TV.

Even in the most extreme scenario—a forced breakup—shareholders would likely come out ahead. If Facebook were split into three separate companies, investors would own three incredibly strong, popular apps. If Amazon were divided into its e-commerce and cloud-computing businesses, you’d own the market leader in both sectors. This logic is especially true for Alphabet. Google Search is so profitable that it subsidizes other ventures like YouTube and Android. If separated, these divisions would be forced to make their own latent earning power a reality. The breakup of Standard Oil over a century ago provides a powerful parallel; its component parts quintupled in value in the decade that followed. For anyone , this is a fascinating potential outcome.

The Real Story: The Second Half of the Chessboard

The regulatory drama is mostly noise. The real signal is the relentless, compounding power of technology itself. We are entering what futurists call “the second half of the chessboard,” a reference to the point in an exponential progression where growth becomes explosive and world-changing.

The innovations of the last 20 years—social media, online search—will seem trivial in comparison to what’s coming. We’re on the cusp of driverless cars, quantum computing, and practical AI. This is where the next wave of fortunes will be made. The pace of change is accelerating, just as it did when the automobile replaced the horse-drawn carriage in a little over a decade.

No company is immune to this disruption. The key to successful is finding durable, not permanent, competitive advantages. Sears was the Amazon of its day, but it failed to adapt. Amazon, too, will one day be swept away by new technology; its CEO Jeff Bezos has openly said he expects Amazon to fail eventually. The only defense is to obsess over customers and keep innovating.

This relentless cycle of change is why an understanding of requires looking beyond today's headlines. The frameworks we use now will eventually become obsolete. While the current tech giants are where the money is today, a new era will demand a new approach.