So are you suggesting that entrepreneurs are founding internet companies only to get acquired?
As for your other part, there are so many internet companies that can (some already are) turn a profit. Instagram's case is exactly that, and hence the scrutiny.
The platform was on a rise, was gaining massive popularity and was on the verge of raising bigger investments and ultimately become an independent entity.
But Facebook came in with a number too good to be true and the founders had to cave in. (You should read the entire FTC investigation of that time)
Yahoo tried to acquire Google several times (at least I know of 2). Yahoo was a giant at that time, but Google relented and became a bigger company, independently. What it is doing today is a different story though.

When I said 'most' you heard 'only'.

Turning profit in B2B is easier than on consumer apps. A DTC brand can also be profitable. But pure internet consumer apps hardly make money in their first 2 years. There are several models but the biggest motivation is an acquisition. Investors don't get anything if the company becomes profitable and stays that way forever. So founders will be pushed to capture as much market share using the revenue or by raising more.

A handful IPO.

True. This entire system of congressional hearings, with blunt, to-the-point questions needs to really happen in India right away. We are already in the age of total monopoly in not just tech, but a lot of other sectors. These hearings can be a morale booster for innovators who wish to come up with newer, better ideas in the same space as these giants.

is asking a question like 'Will you tailor your stuff to help Joe Biden win like you did in 2016 for Hillary' by a Senator to a top tech CEO live in a public forum, stupid / waste of time? And the Amazon bookseller case? Very easy to criticize and say it was stupid but when we hear Google fcuks our privacy or Amazon bulldozers SMEs, we are the first one to cry hoarse. Remember the laws are a century old, so this was a brilliant start to stay the least. And yes, couple of questions could have been sharpened.

100% agree. This hearing was designed for the election 2020, nothing more.

I would suggest you read the entire email transcripts of the conversation that took place between Zuck and his team.

did you see the session and hear the questions?

yes and it was an utter waste of time

why? Most of the world feels this is unprecedented and a major initialization step.

The comment above by Ajay answers it very well

Exact reason why I asked you if you seen/heard the session. It didn't focus only on FB - there were blunt questions with proof asked of Bezos and Pichai too, which is unprecedented there.

I watched the whole session with Mark.
I will tell you what my problem with these sessions are
1. These guys don't understand how tech and business operates
2. The point of this is not to have a discussion at all its always comes out like an attack

It was round robin types, so you would have watched a few for others too - other than when Bezos' feed failed. Yes, Senators being non-domain guys are just initiating this basis previous data - real game starts now onwards. Didn't understand your second point.

To the questions that you pointed out:
1. Do you understand Facebook’s tech in depth ? Do you understand in depth as to how Facebook’s business operates ?
2. It is not an attack. US Congress is the only forum where such questions can beasked. Journalists have stopped doing that altogether, even in the US. So who will ask these questions then ?

Noone is stopping them from doing business. It is a question of “how” you do that business. And lawmakers are not there to understand tech and business, their job is to understand and question the impact these companies have on the public. Nobody elects lawmakers because they understand tech and business. Lawmakers are elected so that they can raise the right questions to the right people at the right time.