The value accrues in the form of incentivizing new products and companies to enter the market. The two options these founders (and their investors) have to capitalize on building a good company is to either go public or get acquired.
Severely limiting the ability to be acquired reduces the incentives for new founders as well as investors in new companies if the only realistic path is waiting for them to go public. Especially since being acquired doesn't require you to be in nearly as good a financial position in terms of profit as going public does.
I can't think of a single time that was overall beneficial for the US in the last decade. A bunch of time sucking sites I don't consider life improving. It won't stop small business and it'll stop big companies from their shitty VC style squeeze everyone out of the market tactic? I don't mind losing that 'value'.
However, product innovation doesn't happen without competition. Acquisitions aren't necessarily bad, but a company being bought by a competitor with a similar product lessens competition and can lead to less innovation.
Severely limiting the ability to be acquired reduces the incentives for new founders as well as investors in new companies if the only realistic path is waiting for them to go public. Especially since being acquired doesn't require you to be in nearly as good a financial position in terms of profit as going public does.