[soared]

Barriers to entry. If I want to make a small forum, these laws make that potentially much more difficult. Now users who may have used my forum may spend more time on facebook instead.

Multiply that times tens of thousands of new sites not being created, tens of thousands of existing sites no longer existing or being accessible due to new laws, this occurring over multiple surfaces (content moderation, age verification, etc) and the positive impact for meta is meaningful.

If there are less sites, meta wins.

[fauigerzigerk]

This is grasping at straws. Centralised social media platforms have won long ago for completely different reasons (mostly network effects and convenience). They haven't been threatened by independent sites for ages.

[nine_k]

Facebook in particular many times voiced its support for various regulations that would be onerous for smaller players.

[fauigerzigerk]

Does that mean they actually support these regulations or could it mean that they think sounding supportive benefits them?

Even if they really did support a particular regulation, it could be to prevent a version of the same regulation that actually has teeth.

Or it could mean they hope to be consulted on the details of any regulation, which is more likely to happen if they sound constructive.

Corporations constantly navigate the political and regulatory landscape. You can't just take "supportive" statements like these at face value.

And finally there's the general fallacy of thinking that if B happens and A wanted it to happen then A must have caused B.