The more obvious solution is taking aggressive trust-busting action and preventing further mergers rather than passing laws to leash the remaining few actors in an already-broken, over-consolidated market.

I'm sure this will draw immediate reactions that in a heavily lobbied (i.e., bribed) environment, it's a pipe dream to hope for antitrust action to occur, but I would point out that the very same environment isn't any more likely to impose meaningful regulation, either.

> So in the face of these market failures, legislation to combat the low hanging fruit like this is probably the only way to make life for consumers bearable without actually fixing the underlying issues.

I tend to think that makes things less bearable in the long term, though, precisely because it doesn't fix the underlying issues. It's like just taking a bunch of ibuprofen and walking on a badly injured leg. It may make it hurt less but it can also make the problem worse. We may need to let the pain get intense enough that people feel no alternative but to overhaul the whole system.

> In a sane market, those dark patterns would be defeated by competition, but there is a distressing lack of sane markets today

Did you miss the part where the parent said "I’ve recently switched to Facebook Dating"?

It sounds nice to make "dark patterns" illegal, but what that means is that its arbitrary since you can't define it. Discretion is fine, but you have to be fine with [bad politician] appointing his minions to oversee the process.

For something simple like "pick up my garbage in a regular cadence", I wouldn't really care if it's Biden, Trump, Obama, Clinton or any reasonable politician so I'm fine with ceding that authority to the state. But when it comes to something like social media regulation, I don't trust politicians.