Well, that’s one way to comply
You can’t just say “nah, fuck it” and not serve the page.
You can, and it’s compliant. It’s a loss of potential business for companies that haven’t made the necessary changes, but they also don’t get your data.
Edit: Ehh… it’s bit of a grey area, you’ll probably not see massive companies do this, but smaller ones will, and they’ll get away with it as the EU would much rather being screwing with Zuckerberg and Musk, which is always a good thing. So not 100% compliant, but if the regulation isn’t enforced as the company has made an effort to stop EU types using the site, it’s probably as good as you’ll get short of requiring passports to log in, which is a whole new kettle of angry fish of regulations.
True, but it’s also a loss of access due to geographical location, which is the opposite of one of the original main tenets of the internet.
It’s not compliant. You might be serving eu citizens living in other countries. I’ve had to implement gdpr regs for a US only company. This isn’t compliant with GDPR.
You can’t just say “nah, fuck it” and not serve the page.
It’s only illegal if you say “nah, fuck it” when users decline to agree with your data collection terms, but offer it when they do.
This is an identical experience, independent of your (dis)agreement with their policies.
That website wants to collect and sell all the userdata without consent
Consent? That’s just some woke word made up to damage family-owned businesses!
Them, probably.
Or they can’t or won’t spend the time to comply to regulations of a region they might not do business in anyway.
I want more predatory websites to do this so that I can avoid them.
Well, this is what you wanted isn’t it? Your government is protecting you, anyone who can’t comply can’t serve you.
I read that as you being facetious, but: Yes this is exactly what I want. If a service can not comply with GDPR, the service should not be accessible. It would be great for their customers if the service decided to change their practices to become compliant, but that is a business decision they need to make.
Adding to that: Compliance is not even that hard to implement. I build almost all of my websites with GDPR compliance in mind and it’s not really a big deal. There are easy to use tools like Cookie Consent and some of the sites don’t even need a banner at all if they have no tracking (which you know, is completely possible too).
Oh no! What will I do now without the prescient geopolitical insight of the Chattanooga Evening Telegraph?
The OP is irritated for some reason, I guess they really wanted that insight.
It’s for the greater good, but it’s also somewhat against the intention of the law, IMO.
Dataprotection is meant to give users control of their data. A restriction like that takes away a bit of my control, however, since it prevents me from doing whatever the fuck I want with my data.
But again: greater good. It also protects people who don’t know what they are doing.
anyone who can’t comply can’t serve you.
That’s not true. If the company isn’t doing business in the EU, they don’t need to comply with the GDPR. What I mean is, they’re entirely outside the jurisdiction of the EU and are not required to comply with any EU law. If the EU decides they want to force a non-EU company to comply, they have no ability to do so.
This is fine imo. If you don’t want to comply, don’t. You just don’t get to extract EU data
Poor strawman mate. You don’t have to be “a geoblocking fan,” you can despise it, while also not enabling privacy invasive firms.
A more careful reading would reveal that I’m NOT in favor of enabling the privacy invasion. I’m against blocking regions rather than comply with a common sense law. I really thought using the words “secret malware” about their deceptive practices would have made that obvious…
cutting people off from important information just because they live in a geographical region that doesn’t allow secret malware.
I think most disagree with your argument, that you need to tolerate ‘secret malware’ to access important information. That information can’t be THAT important or else it could be found elsewhere, completely without malware.
You always have the option of a VPN. That and private mode is probably a good best practice for a site like this anyway.
Unfortunately you aren’t automatically entitled to this information that I imagine mostly comes from private for-profit companies.
Yeah, because wanting important information to be freely accessible to the world is SUCH an entitled perspective, unlike pretending that secretly spying on your users and feeding them unwanted ads is justified 🙄
See, while I don’t like the invasiveness of it, that’s also their business model. If they put it behind a subscription instead, it wouldn’t be right to say “this information is important and needs to be available, stop charging for it,” when charging for it is part of why they provide it. Private companies have a right to not do business with those that won’t pay for their services, even if that payment is your data.
Europeans (and everyone, morally) have a right to privacy that conflicts with the method of payment. This website resolved that, if it can’t get paid in it’s chosen form, it won’t provide its service. That’s fine. I don’t support this decision, but it’s not
If this information is vital to the public, that’s a separate issue entirely, and it needs to be available in some form that isn’t sold. We can’t rely on a private entity not employed by a government to do this of its own free will.
