> It's intriguing to me how there's seemingly a lot of objections in this thread to the idea that this movement was driven by lobbyists. I realize it's skirting the guidelines but the tone here comes across as some sort of astroturfing particularly when I consider the general tone of past threads on the same topic within the past few months.

I'm getting the same impression.

Lobbyists don’t lobby just to lobby, they lobby on behalf of someone paying them. So this doesn’t actually answer the question, it just shifts it to “Who is behind the lobbyists?”

No kidding. I'm saying that those parties were mentioned in past threads and that I don't recall the details.

It doesn't matter what you answer, slg will always try to use the way you answered to argue against you, not the substance. This person seems to be only interested in derailing the conversation.

You're decrying this supposed issue, that multiple countries are all copying one another for legislation. You've repeated this multiple times in these comments.

And yet, after all this, you're not interested enough to remember who's behind this important issue for you. If someone really cares they should get informed.

So they don't really care, so what. It's Meta who are supposedly lobbying.

> you're not interested enough to remember who's behind this important issue for you

You're demanding that others spoon feed you peer reviewed evidence that water is wet. As you say, if you really care you should expend the effort to inform yourself. I myself have no need at present for the hazily remembered details. The only thing at issue in the here and now was the absurd claim that there's no centralized lobbying effort involved.

> if you really care you should expend the effort to inform yourself.

I don't care. Unlike you, I am sufficiently informed about how legislatures around the world operate to know that coordination of this nature is common, anodine, and the way they have enshrined a global economy that has unlocked unfathomable wealth.