>>People who are struggling to get by are not going to have the time, energy, or expertise to comparison shop. And when their identities get stolen because thei

>>People who are struggling to get by are not going to have the time, energy, or expertise to comparison shop. And when their identities get stolen because their personal information was leaked by a provider, they're just going to get crushed. The cost to innovation is too steep a price for the additional safety gained. As it is, we don't live in a safe world either way. We are constantly struggling against the forces of uncertainty. It is only through innovation that we better enable ourselves to contend with these forces. Look at all of the web innovation that has arisen over the last two decades. It's given us a significant boost in our ability to manage the world around us. Restrictive regimes like GDPR inhibit the free flow of action that generates innovation. It's bad bargain. >>Those proposals of yours didn't happen for a reason: they are not in the interest of the capitalist class, and the way modern markets are set up, capitalists have way more power than other individual citizens. I don't agree with your classist categorizations, but let's just say there is a powerful special interest that stands in the way of a given political solution. I'd argue that any effective solution would need to be implemented over the lobbying and resistance of one or more of said powerful special interest groups. If a political solution didn't need to be implemented over the objections of one of these groups, then I'd argue that it's almost certainly not effective, for one or more reasons. So I'd say it's better to not implement a political change, if the ideal solution is not viable.