This article tries to make the case that, among other things, the GDPR "hurts everyone except Facebook". Wait, what? The GDPR is a net positive for citizen pri

This article tries to make the case that, among other things, the GDPR "hurts everyone except Facebook". Wait, what? The GDPR is a net positive for citizen privacy. This article's attempt to spin it as an anticompetitive bigco-driven monstrosity is factually wrong and ignorant of the GDPR's history. I have similar (but less strong) doubts about this article's case that automated censorship is obviously better for "everyone except Facebook" if the rules about what to censor were set by tech molochs and not governments. I'm wary of any kind of censorship, but if we have to have it, I prefer the rules to be set in a public parliament and not some boardroom somewhere. "Corporate responsibility" my ass. At this scale, Facebook are public infrastructure and should be regulated as such. I'll gladly believe the author that Zuckerberg will always and only do things that benefit Facebook. Zuckerberg has shown time and time again that every single public initiative he takes turns out to be in Facebook's direct benefit and often in everybody else's disadvantage. Of course there's a hidden agenda here, there always is. But the author hasn't found it.