Safety/Quality regulations reduces choices and quantity. This hits poor the most, as they can no longer buy inferior but cheap products and services. See China.
Instead regulations should be focus on reducing scam and misleading offerings. If someone wants to buy/use despite knowing the risks, let him.
> Safety/Quality regulations reduces choices and quantity.
They also prevent people dying when they plug in their appliance, or dying because there's lead paint on the product, or buying flour that's adulterated with alum, plaster of Paris or chalk.
The history of food and electrical regulations, on both sides of the Atlantic, are enough to convince me that rich and poor (I have been both) are better served by enough regulation to ensure basic standards are met. In the case of the US and food, prior to such regulation, adulteration was more common than not[0].
> If someone wants to buy/use despite knowing the risks, let him.
This is never the case. The risks are hidden, the product masquerades as a genuine iPhone charger, or contains unsafe substances that cannot be known without laboratory testing. Data is taken "to provide a better service", without mention of the 206 places it's sold to, or other uses for which it is mined, or the fun psychological experiments staff might run on their users.
To relate it back to the original discussion about data, I am fully in favour of regulations that demand adequate safeguards and protections of personal data, and high expectations of diligence from companies that must use such data. It goes without saying that I am in favour of severe penalties for egregious breach of such regulations.
Instead regulations should be focus on reducing scam and misleading offerings. If someone wants to buy/use despite knowing the risks, let him.