3 ms·

"Failing" seems a bit harsh. Lots of people run websites that don't make money, and lots of users get value from such sites. Sometimes the operator still hopes

"Failing" seems a bit harsh. Lots of people run websites that don't make money, and lots of users get value from such sites. Sometimes the operator still hopes to gain from the site (in publicity or whatever), or sometimes it's just a gift. The GDPR just made that gift more expensive. If he's not doing anything deliberately shady, then the probability that he'll get fined is small; but a small probability times 20M EUR is still a big number. Maybe I don't understand the GDPR well enough, but the statutory fines seem insane to me. Why do you think 20M EUR is the right number here? Or am I missing details of the law (the law, not how you expect it will be enforced) that mean his actual maximum liability is smaller? Do you just have extraordinary confidence in the regulators to "do the right thing", and thus no qualms about giving them the legal authority to ruin his life?

dleslie 9y ago
The gift part is lost on so many. Perhaps it was unintended to increase the potential burden of monetary cost to running services that were created and provided as hobbies or otherwise as a goodwill gesture to others. Or maybe the regulators didn't care to consider the impact on such services. Or maybe ... Regardless, thanks to regulators and data/service silos the web we once new or dreamed of is fading from reality. With just the silos to contend with such services could hitherto continue to exist with little concern for the actions of the behemoths; but now such an existence is threatened by regulatory concerns which blanket all regardless of their role and activity. Perhaps the correct action is to blackhole .EU?