I note with amusement that you did not post this same comment in response to every other reply which included no sources at all.
I suppose one only thinks critically when they disagree.
The phrasing of the question and prompting of it plays a huge part too. Including Trump’s name at all is huge. It makes it an immediate reactionary political question. Swap Trump for something on the left and you’ll likely get different results. Even without Trump. The prompting is worded the way it is. It’s so political it’s going to skew anything and everything.
For the first one. Your description just sounds reasonable. Why would you say no to general regulation against big tech? Besides not wanting to be a hypocrite if you’re on the right (which clearly shows a ton of them are fine being hypocrites with that 80% figure).
Change regulation to oil companies or manufacturing and suddenly those centrists and people on the right won’t be polling the same way.
Which again means this is more political than any actual knowledge of the situation. People don’t know or understand online privacy by and large. It’s such an obvious take. To argue against it with credible sources that don’t actually relate much to the topic shows how far out your thinking is. There will never be agreement because you’re not even thinking about this in the same way.
80% on an online positive-assertive survey ran on population that small it's a completely bogus statistic.
heck I can't even fathom how people would cite this, the methodological note is three lines, doesn't tell how the participants were selected, say votes were weighted but doesn't say the weights nor the weighted parameters; they have like 72 pages of demographics, probably a couple person for each, and say the error margin is 2%