Starting if with the usual insults I see.
Crony capitalism is behind all the mega-successful companies.
No. Capitalism is behind all the mega-successful companies.
Big companies lobby for more regulation to prevent smaller companies from popping up.
That is crony. It is not capitalism.
Regulations make it harder for others to enter a market.
That is fascism. That is not capitalism.
Zuckerberg wants congress to regulate content, and he's volunteered his help.
Big deal. He'll get bit by the same regulations that everyone else will. He's just too stupid to see it.
He doesn't want competitors to serve people facebook rejects.
No, he doesn't. That doesn't have anything to do with his attempt to regulate content. Non-sequitur fallacy.
Amazon is pushing for a federal $15 minimum wage to make it harder for small startups to afford labor.
Lots of people in the Seattle area are. So? Startups will still form. That won't stop them.
IBM was under a consent decree and the government prohibited them from having fully their own PC.
Total BS. IBM once DID have their own PC. They fully owned it. It failed in the market.
So, they outsourced the operating system to Microsoft.
WRONG. IBM did not write DOS, or CP/M (the immediate parent of DOS), or ISIS (the immediate parent of CP/M) or Windows (descended from the Parc project, which itself descended from the Plato project). IBM's operating system for it's fully owned PC was OS/2, developed by both Microsoft and IBM (since IBM didn't have the resources to write its own operating system for the PC platform).
If not for this, you would never have heard of Microsoft.
Oh yes I would. Their first product was NOT an operating system. Neither was their second, third, or fourth products. They were programming languages. IBM didn't plagiarize DOS until 4 years later. Windows was a couple of years after that.
And, today, IBM would likely be one of the world's biggest companies, if for crony capitalism.
They still are. They run mostly on inertia these days though.
(IBM would also have avoided being decimated with today's weak antitrust attitudes.)
Why is there only one monopolies commission?
Changes in technology can change the leading companies,
Good for you. That's capitalism in action.
but I don't see how that has anything to do, per se, with crony capitalism.
It doesn't. It's capitalism.
If IBM or DEC failed on their own to dominate emerging industries (e.g. the personal computer industry), what does that have to do with crony capitalism?
It doesn't. It's capitalism.
How about companies that lost in an unchanging market they once led?
Same thing applies. Capitalism changes markets through the creation of wealth.
Unchanging markets? No, you will find them in socialists nations.
I don't understand your examples of crony capitalism hurting companies.
When a company goes crony, the are no longer being capitalists. Crony is not capitalism. It is begging the government to become one of the 'elite' in a socialistic structure.
What did Youtube and Google do that was crony capitalism, and specifically how did it hurt Youtube or Google?
Political correctness to gain political favor with the government.
15 competing playback sites?
Yup.
Youtube commands more user-created video streaming market than ever before,
No, it doesn't.
most of the others have gone way or barely exist now.
WRONG. They are still there and they are growing.
Google search faces no noticeable competition,
WRONG. There are already a variety of search engines out there.
except maybe from Bing (and, that has nothing to do with winning consumers).
It doesn't?
Sarch Engines Percentage Market Share
Search Engine Market Share Worldwide - May 2019
Google 92.04%
Yahoo! 2.67% [uses Bing]
bing 2.39%
Baidu 0.89% [Chinese]
YANDEX RU 0.51%
DuckDuckGo 0.38%
Argument from randU fallacy.
That 92% is the highest for Google ever, in a market that has only been growing.
WRONG. The only place Google has that large a market share is mobile search (phones).