One thing I don't understand about aggressive anti-regulation arguments is they don't actually provide a solution. Supposedly the negative outcomes from social media are to be ignored because of privacy? Like you can ignore any societal issue with this blanket argument of privacy... Ok, shall we have no laws because fundamentally we should be free to do anything? Why is it acceptable for the government to stop me pouring crude oil into Sydney Harbour, but not to stop current status quo "acceptable" (but probably very harmful) behaviours like social media?

> Why is it acceptable for the government to stop me pouring crude oil into Sydney Harbour, but not to stop current status quo "acceptable" (but probably very harmful) behaviours like social media?

Kind of obvious why - the scale of harm.

Think for a second, smoking is still legal. Smoking literally gives cancer and has insane societal cost. But somehow it's acceptable.

Thus yes, privacy argument is a very reasonable argument 'on the Internet'.

Laws asking digital ID are worse than the problem they are supposed to solve.