never understood the anti-regulatory vitriol expressed by normal people (that is people who would not directly benefit from the absence of regulation but actually have much to lose), especially in the US (but UK's Brexit ideology used the regulatory overreach accusation against the EU to "good" effect too - the "curved banana" absurdity).
from the food we eat, the medicine we take, the cars we drive, the planes we fly, the banks with bank with, and, dare I say, the digital technology we have, the quality of our experience relies 100% on there being strong, non-captured, informed, hands-on regulation that tries on an ongoing basis to correct market failures (for which there is a mountain of damning historical experience)
remove regulation and energy companies will put poison in your car tank and they will destroy the atmosphere, banks will fall apart and your life savings will evaporate, planes will be flown with minimal tests and collapse and you will be inside, techs will pilfer and sell your behavioral profile to the highest bidder
self-regulation is a tool that works in certain circumstances but definitely cannot be relied upon across the board. especially not in oligopolistic conditions where better alternatives will struggle to receive traction. especially not on the face of our economies having ignored entirely the environmental damage of throwaway electronic devices and plastic pollution
what is the risk of veering to the opposite side, actual regulatory overreach, that is somehow gratuitous and does not simply try to correct some market failure? At worst it may delay things here and there. Taking a step back and looking at the outcomes of "the move fast and break things" ideology, that might not be a bad thing at all