"Badly written laws in reaction to Cambridge Analytica could end up solidifying Facebook's dominance, as only a company with their resources could comply." Wit

"Badly written laws in reaction to Cambridge Analytica could end up solidifying Facebook's dominance, as only a company with their resources could comply." Without examples, it is difficult to understand what the author is trying to communicate with this statement. Is it too vague? Hypothetically, if a user was provided with a software program that allowed her computers to form separate and distinct peer-to-peer "social networks" with small groups of family, friends or colleagues without any assistance from a third party website such as Facebook, would the "badly written laws" affect this type of competition? Should we assume that the only competition for Facebook could come from another website that resembles it, both in size and architecture? Will users ever grow tired of the limitations and negative side effects of the centralised, web-based, third party-managed "social network" styled after Facebook? Are the privacy issues that Facebook must contend with due, at least in part, to the architecture of their "network", viz. aggregating millions of small social groups together in a single website where they can be more easily targeted by advertisers. What if, instead of millions of small social groups managed by one website company (Facebook), these groups were each independently managed by the members themselves, having no centralised path for advertisers nor "bad actors" to reach them.