You make an interesting point. I initially do think there is a scale where someone should not be allowed to just destroy something just because it's theirs. In the same way the US government has eminent domain to stop someone from hoarding land that serves the greater good, I think there needs to be a similar process for a corporation that is has more influence than many countries. I don't think Facebook is necessarily there or doing something bad enough to warrant anything like that, but I do think that threshold exists where the people can say "thanks for this incredibly valuable thing, but your right to destroy it is significantly less important the benefit we receive from it so we'll take it from here." For example, what if Google just said "we're tired. We're deleting all your emails and documents and websites and domains and we're closing down tomorrow." Shouldn't someone be able to step in and say that you don't get to destroy so much value for absolutely no reason?
> In the same way the US government has eminent domain to stop someone from hoarding land that serves the greater good
Governments use eminent domain when they want to do something with your land, it's not been used to take it just because someone has a lot of it - and I think that might go against all the case law, but IANAL.
But all that said, I don't think the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers - no one can tell if a gambit is a good idea or a bad one until it pays off or fails spectacularly.
The alternative here is nationalization, and I don't think the government should be in the business of nationalizing the tech industry either.
Let's be clear - while Zuck has the majority voting rights(does he?), he isn't the majority owner.
But even if he was, his decisions would impact the minority owners... and we have had cases, where devaluing minority shareholder value has been deemed illegal.
Imagine that you're in a co-op building and the majority vote owner decides to demolish the building...
