Instead you seem to be a hurry to travel down a road that sometimes ends with the word "Statist" getting thrown around as an epithet against heretical outsiders.
> [Disparagingly:] Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have.
Let's apply the same logic to non-digital goods and services: Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail?
Amazing...even after I point out his janky biology analogy, you go ahead and try one yourself. You people can't help but to double down.
Yeah, that's what I suspected, we're done here.
Government? Maybe. Private corporations exploiting the hell out of a natural monopoly? Hell no. Genuinely democratic government (which implies opt-in, or at least the ability to opt-out) sure. That's what standards bodies are for.
Unlike some here, I can see value in user protection laws like the GDPR, for the same reason I see the value in governments creating heavy disincentives for kidnapping or murder. Such laws can, if necessary, be enforced on groups running instances of federated social network software. We saw what happened when the US Congress tried to regulate a major centralized provider; a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTv0MZBCQCs
You finally got to the crux of your argument after contorting around a bad analogy. Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have.
Let me tell you something. That position is the complete opposite of what Hacker News is all about.