It doesn't matter whether the monopoly position was achieved "fairly" or not. Either way it is detrimental to the overall health of the economy and to consumer choice, and that alone is good enough reason to bust them. Those laws were passed for a reason - people saw what the end result looked like, and they didn't like it.

If you don't want someone to come and bust a monopoly you've spent years and billions building, then don't use your time and money to build a monopoly.

Google benefits at scale from infrastructure, systems and laws that create the opportunity to make such revenues. It is only natural they should not harm the host.

It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness.

Standard Oil is being competitive.

The U.S. oil refining and distribution industry is being anti-competitive.

Because they suck at competing against Standard Oil and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.

Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing”.

And before someone tells me “that’s the Sherman Act”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.

(I hope this illustrates how easy it is to make this exact argument about literally any monopoly.)