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).
Cookie consent is the tip of the iceberg for GDPR compliance. If you're not collecting any user data for any reason, such as account creation, then you're probably ok with cookie consent, but GDPR is non trivial to comply with for companies collecting personal data.
Well I'm only being facetious insomuch as the OP is annoyed at a perfectly predictable outcome of laws that Europeans wanted. I'm very critical of the GDPR, I do want laws that prevent data harvesting but I just don't think the GDPR was the right approach.
Not "can't comply" but "doesn't want to comply". Other than that fully agreed, it is what I wanted.
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.
No, I just don't want sites like this to appear in my search results.
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.
Serving ads to Europeans is doing business in the EU, and the US and EU have reciprocal civil enforcement mechanisms.
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.
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).
Cookie consent is the tip of the iceberg for GDPR compliance. If you're not collecting any user data for any reason, such as account creation, then you're probably ok with cookie consent, but GDPR is non trivial to comply with for companies collecting personal data.
Well I'm only being facetious insomuch as the OP is annoyed at a perfectly predictable outcome of laws that Europeans wanted. I'm very critical of the GDPR, I do want laws that prevent data harvesting but I just don't think the GDPR was the right approach.
Not "can't comply" but "doesn't want to comply". Other than that fully agreed, it is what I wanted.
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.
No, I just don't want sites like this to appear in my search results.
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.
Serving ads to Europeans is doing business in the EU, and the US and EU have reciprocal civil enforcement mechanisms.
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.