Matthew D. Schwartz in his QFT and the Standard Model subsection 10.1.2, shows that $SO(1,3) \cong SU(2) \times SU(2)$ which according to this PhysicsSE post is actually untrue. I was confused about this because of the usage of direct product to actually mean tensor product in texts such as, for eg., Wu Ki Tung's Group Theory in Physics. But here in this context, it is now actually clear that what is meant is a direct product so the following makes sense.
Schwartz writes:
\begin{equation} \mathfrak{so}(1,3) \cong \mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus \mathfrak{su}(2).\tag{10.27} \end{equation}
So that would mean that if we have an spin $A$ and $B$ representations of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$, we can construct(?) a representation of $\mathfrak{so}(1,3)$ by taking the direct sum of these two representations, Schwartz calls this (and I think this is standard) $(A,B)$. I'll be speaking terms of matrix representations to avoid being too abstract. Now since this is a direct sum of a $2A+1$ dimensional representation with a $2B+1$ dimensional representation, the matrix representation of $(A,B)$ is $2A+2B+2$ dimensional, which is what I would expect.
The point is that Schwartz says below eq. (10.27) that this representation has $(2A+1)(2B+1)$ degrees of freedom, which is not clear to me, since I only see $(2A+1) + (2B+1)$. Can someone clarify?