Or you know, some actually read it and agree?

What is bad about heavy handed regulation to protect citizens?

"blindly"? Only if you assume you are right in your opinion can you arrive at the conclusion that your detractors didn't learn about it.

Since you then admit to "assume by default", are you sure you are not what you complain about?

Well Europe haven't enacted policies actually breaking American monopolies until now.

Europeans are still essentially on Google, Meta and Amazon for most of their browsing experiences. So I'm assuming Europe's goal is not to compete or break American moat but to force them to be polite and to preserve national sovereignty on important national security aspects.

A position which is essentially reasonable if not too polite.

Everything in this thread even remotely anti-EU-regulation is being extreme downvoted

I’d side with Europe blindly over any corporation.

The European government has at least a passing interest in the well being of human beings while that is not valued by the incentives that corporations live by

So you're surprised that people are siding with Europe blindly, but you're "assuming by default" that you should side with Meta blindly.

Perhaps it's easier to actually look at the points in contention to form your opinion.

Maybe the others have put in a little more effort to understand the regulation before blindly criticising it? Similar to the GDPR, a lot of it is just common sense—if you don’t think that "the market" as represented by global mega-corps will just sort it out, that is.

Are you aware of the irony in your post?

If I've got to side blindly with any entity it is definitely not going to be Meta. That's all there is.