Free markets work, bruh.

Tbh how would preventing Facebook from selling individuals data made the price of entry higher?

Because you can’t make a law exclusive to one company

Or how would making it so Facebook can't ban users for wrong think cause the bar for entry to rise?

It has to be generally applied

Yes, but that doesn't answer me.

How does it?

That's working from the presumption that the regulation has to be difficult to enforce for example a law saying you have to police hate speech while a free speech law would actually lower to cost to entry reducing the need to moderate because they'd be legally covered

This is just an example but the idea is it doesn't just flow one way

How does preventing Facebook and any other company for that matter from selling user data to the gov or foreign governments raise the bar of entry?

When it comes to social media, if you define yourself as a platform, then obeying regulation becomes almost trivial for entrants

It's only if you want to be a publisher that you have severe barriers

They're not economics majors, barely read beyond conjecture of the lobbies you've referenced, Scale. Even scarier is the fact many corporations go on public campaigns criticizing the operation of their respective industries to evoke public demand for regulation. 😉

What you're describing is more of a trend at which point I refer to whom is making the regulations - boomer - politicians and leftists

Ok. Facebook is a hive of leftist scum and villainy, right?
I know it, you know it, we all know it.
Let’s say you want to start a competitor, and make it a right wing version of Facebook?
Now you can’t.
So you don’t bother making *any* platform.

Let’s say we make rules that make it harder to monetize the sale of data.
Ok. Facebook has a metric dick tonne of lawyers. They can comply with the law. They can adjust.
You? Wanting to start up a competitor? You’re new. You don’t have a tonne of lawyers. You can’t do that.
So you make something else.

Facebook becomes the only game in town.

You’re throwing a pebble at Facebook, and dropping a boulder on startups.

You're point isn't wrong but it is representative of a trend rather then a rule

https://youtu.be/7aIXwMc20TE

That assumes they've engaged in publishing, Eccles. If Facebook engages in publishing, as does Discord.

how to get women to send anything through phone
Get her to say "feet are not a sexual object"
Then reply with :
"ok then send me feet pics RIGHT NOW"

I never said harder to monetise, I said ban the sale of. If everyone can't do it, where's the issue?

I'd personally question the idea of regulation in relation to privacy to begun with

You know Facebook listens to and records your messanger voice chats?

Again. Facebook. Army of lawyers. They can adapt.
Startups can’t.

@Scale_e Make different laws for startups.

Easy

Can’t do that

They have economic scale on their side.

Case by case

That’s illegal

Indeed.

Not if you make it legal

You can’t make laws for specific companies

It’s unconstitutional

Nor should you

Well then your constitution is retarded

It’s pretty fkn evil tbh

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-falls-for-prank-call-during-radio-phonein-i-turned-from-remainer-to-brexiteer-after-a4245981.html

Lmao

It should be about conduct generally not just one company

At least Nigel handled the prank well lmao