You wrote: "EUGDPR prevented Facebook from implementing Anti Suicide measures."
I provided you with a link showing that they had less than stellar motives for developing the tool which would have violated the "informed consent" provisions of the GDPR.
I'm still not sure whether you're trolling or not, but I willing to give this another go, using both links that you and I have posted, so here goes:
Facebook/Instagram did not set out to develop a tool to recognize suicidal tendencies for altruistic purposes or to benefit their users. They set out to collect personal data on their users of the sort: "XY has suicidal tendencies" which they then wanted to sell to advertisers to market their products at.
I hope we can universally agree that that is an immoral and objectively wrong thing to do.
Additionally, the whole argument seems pretty rich considering that they would be pushing a solution for a problem that they helped create and are perpetuating.
To quote the suicidees parent in the BBC article you linked to:
Molly's father, Ian, has previously said the "pushy algorithms" of social media "helped kill my daughter".
The link i posted clearly states: "...The second way Facebook could avoid data law concerns is by asking for consent, perhaps by making the system opt-in. However, in the US and elsewhere, users won't even be able to opt-out.".
My standpoint is: GDPR didn't "prevent" something good from happening. All that Facebook/Instagram had to do was obtain consent before gathering and using personal data for whatever specific purposes which was agreed to by the users.
So you see, it is about consent. This shouldn't be a controversial topic, yet here we are.