I'm not sure you understand the information problem I meant. The information problem I meant is that, heuristically speaking, the amount of information required to make correct economic decisions goes up exponentially with the size of the economy, while the bandwidth of information channels available to any central authority only goes up linearly with the size of the economy. So there is no possible way that any central authority can receive enough information to make correct economic decisions in an economy of any significant size.
First, because the goal of corporations is to maximize profits, not to maximize people's well being. The point of socialist government (and more generally of "correct" economic decisions) is supposed to be to maximize people's well being. For example, Google is a large corporation because of economies of scale in leveraging search and other apps to capture ad revenue. It makes no profit from serving its users' needs, except indirectly. Similar remarks apply to Facebook and other tech giants.
Second, because centralization in industry is actually dependent, to a large extent, on centralization in government. Large corporations have all kinds of advantages that have nothing to do with serving customers well, and a lot to do with being able to successfully lobby lawmakers and regulators to their advantage. The tech industry is young enough that this process hasn't gone as far as it has in, for example, the US defense industry, where all of the large corporations exist only because they have optimized themselves for getting government contracts.
In other words, large corporations don't have any magical way of getting around the information problem I described, any more than large governments do. They just latch on to a source of profits that doesn't require them to actually aggregate all that information at all.
Accomplish what? If you don't mean accomplish central control over the economy, then I fail to understand what you mean by "an efficient socialist economy".
There is no such thing. You've just reinvented the same kind of Communism that the Soviet Union ran a 70-year-plus experiment on. It doesn't work. Control of how capital is used always comes down to a small fraction of humans making the decisions.
"Collective ownership" doesn't solve this problem; it makes it worse.
The only way to solve it is for everybody to own the wealth they create, and then trade. In other words, free markets. "Capitalism" might not be the right name for such a system, but that's because that word has come to mean centralized control of capital, rather than free markets.