I have a rule for reading materials: I read them till the first BS sentence. This one made me stop at: "Most problematic, it’s a behavior that kills people".
Well, first of all, it's not "prohibited", it's "prohibited without a consent". Second, less personal data - less useful (relevant) ads, less revenue for Meta - less investment in R&D, less open source/research, more focus on "gathering contextual portrait". Which... won't end monopoly if that's what the general public on HN wants (hard to say what this whining is all about). Maybe more advertisers will go to Google instead (if the ruling is only about Meta).
But that's solely because media has always been a drug (clickbaits, cognitive tricks, etc.) serving as a power tool. The ones you mentioned, including HN belong one way or another to a "Democratic" party. And all these billionaires, well, they chose their side (as all billionaires do when it comes to power and politics) and we have what we have (i.e. "democratic" media not discussing "republican-leaning" billionaires' jets).
But many journalists have crypto assets themselves? :)
Let's face it: this whole massive money pie appeared because (mostly educated) people started gambling thinking there's an easy way up. And they do so at scale because becoming wealthy nowadays is super hard comparing to, say, 50-70 years ago.
