Wrong. It is anti-capitalist to break up any company. For any company, there is an optimal size based on what type of market they are in. There are a number of markets where this optimal size happens to be the entire market or more. This is a natural monopoly and is OK. "Buying out the nearest competitor," if done with a plan to then use the resulting monopoly position to raise prices, is an excellent way to go broke.

Raising prices, or in general being economically inefficient, attracts competition into your market. Buying out competitors with the intention to later raise prices just wastes the money you spent on that competitor. Buying out competitors in order to make your company a stronger competitor (AKA what Google does) is completely fine. A natural monopoly is fine simply because they reach and keep their position by being a better competitor, which is good for end consumers.

Having one source being the source of every produce or service is not necessarily bad, it is only "bad" if, through some magical means, they manage to use this position to induce economic inefficiency for personal benefit.

So there's this entire questionably legal surveillance system going up. Real big brother type stuff, yet I at least haven't heard of this at all until now, not to mention the US at large. If people who actually watch out for these kinda things don't hear about this, than what's the chance of their actually being public backlash? Yeah so....I'm moving to Sweden.