[kodablah]

You have deviated into the absolutist approach I mentioned before. You don't even have to do without regulation, just not more and larger. Among solutions there includes: education, enforcement of existing statutes, reduced scope legislation until enforcement catches up, promotion of alternative approaches, tacit support for technical defenses, etc, etc. There are so many more. Adopting this large sweeping legislation is a myopic approach taken by those who think they wield a toolbox with only one tool in it. Sometimes even, if the unfortunate choice is corporate or government overreach, we should not be so hasty to counteract the former with the latter. Work towards it.

[oldcynic]

GDPR really isn't that much more than the previous DPA which was in place 20 years without problem. Businesses and startups were still formed.

To stick to the general. Who pays for education and promotion of alternatives against industries spending billions? Either it's coming out of tax or a regulation is required to force educational messages and disclaimers. If neither it just seems a way to assert the status quo as any interested party or user rights group that does get a little visibility will be immediately advertised against by those with a financial interest but far deeper pockets.

Regulation might not be perfect, but seems to be the only viable way left to limit the problems that come with unrestricted commerce.

[kodablah]

I think anti social media PSAs are as reasonable as any other PSAs. It's ok to encourage people to go outside instead of play video games or encourage people to not talk on the phone while driving. The video game and phone industries are big too. It's ok to give grants to projects that already have other players in the industry. It's ok to suggest people use ad block. There's no need to be so defeatist assuming nothing will work. We can't even really discuss these types of solutions if everything but law is assumed to not work for internet privacy issues when law is the only one that has been shown not to work. Absolutist phrases like "unrestricted commerce" (as though that exists) "regulation [...] only viable way left" are the reason nobody can see alternatives. It's like self-imposed blinders.

[oldcynic]

It's OK but ineffectual when up against industries spending orders of magnitude more. It can never be a level playing field.

You give using a phone while driving as an example. UK tried PSAs for years before ultimately outlawing it. Enough were seen ignoring that law that they doubled the penalty some years later. From the occasional piece I've seen on US sites that mention the issue I get the impression that distraction from phones is a disappointing but accepted facet of modern driving.

The older I get the more agreeable I feel to more regulation and adequate enforcement. Without it companies large and small, and individuals, are too inclined to be abusive - of pollution, of privacy, of financial misselling and so on. All to make that sale or commission. Caveat emptor works when it's a consumer against the local greengrocer, or taking a survey before house purchase. Not so much when it's a consumer against multi-nationals employing psychologists and so forth which is why most UK consumer regulation has been steadily moving away from that model for years.

As a European I can look as the US, who prefer minimal regulation, and see it as providing much confirmation that I don't want to do it that way. I'm a little disappointed that UK governments frequently do wish to adopt a US-lite approach.