5 ms·

Blocking access at geographic level across pretty clear signal they don't care about users/readers in those regions (I think it's hard to argue otherwise, the l

by AJRF 8y ago

Blocking access at geographic level across pretty clear signal they don't care about users/readers in those regions (I think it's hard to argue otherwise, the law has been coming for 2 years). Obviously they cater to people interested in local news in those regions. However, I hope they will rectify and allow access again for EU users at some point soon. It seems to go against the idea of a borderless internet, and I blame the companies for that, not the EU.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
They will, see my click through EULA comment.
sschueller 8y ago
Too bad that they would actually have to block EU citizens not territories.
- baq 8y ago
  They're trying and it's quite effective. If they're fined (unlikely), their fine will most likely be greatly reduced.
dorfsmay 8y ago
> clear signal they don't care Or, it could mean they hadn't realised how much work it'd take to be GDPR compliant, and decided to temporarily use geographical blocking until they can be compliant.
- AJRF 8y ago
  It took them 2 years to realise that? That’s the same as not caring.
  - dorfsmay 8y ago
    When you have competing priorities and finite time and budget, people often don't investigate external requirements, assuming that they'll just comply when they no longer have a choice. That's why the first few audits (SOX, PCI, etc...) for a company new to them, are always such a struggle, people starting to look at the months of work needed the same week the auditors are planned to come in. edit/PS: Did you notice how many "We changed our policy" emails you've received in the past 2 weeks, including from very large international companies like google, yahoo, etc... Companies for which not being open for business in Europe would have financially impact. Probably a good indication that they ended up with a lot more work to comply that they had anticipated, and still made it just in time. Now imagine the same situation in smaller companies running on very thin resources that cannot afford a sudden increase in staff!
  - dexterdog 8y ago
    They were not remotely thinking about this 2 years ago.
kodablah 8y ago
> However, I hope they will rectify and allow access again for EU users at some point soon. Honestly, I don't. I don't want this precedent of government overreach to stand. I wish more international companies would stop doing business with US citizens for the same reasons. > It seems to go against the idea of a borderless internet, and I blame the companies for that, not the EU. You don't blame border-based rules for harming the traditional borderless approach? How illogical.
- oblio 8y ago
  > Honestly, I don't. I don't want this precedent of government overreach to stand. Why is it overreach? It's literally why we invented government! I, the little guy, couldn't find giants like Facebook or Google. That's why I asked my democratically elected government to work on the problem.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    To me it's overreach because smaller measures could have been a better first step, this won't help the problem much, and it hurts the non-targets. I understand it's why you asked your government to work on the problem. We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one.
    - oblio 8y ago
      > We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one. Just because the government does something, that thing is bad? I don't understand your logic... I quite like what they've done.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        No, just because they do something doesn't mean it's good. I don't like it, but then again I don't like the cloud act, some dmca provisions, etc. We can disagree whether the law is good or not, it's just that this topic (not you specifically) causes people to assume being against the legislation means being against its purpose. I think there were many better ways to work on the problem.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Blocking access at geographic level across pretty clear signal they don't care about users/readers in those regions They can't make money off of you because the ad networks can't operate, so all EU users are a cost.

by AJRF 8y ago

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

They will, see my click through EULA comment.

sschueller 8y ago

Too bad that they would actually have to block EU citizens not territories.

baq 8y ago
They're trying and it's quite effective. If they're fined (unlikely), their fine will most likely be greatly reduced.

dorfsmay 8y ago

> clear signal they don't care Or, it could mean they hadn't realised how much work it'd take to be GDPR compliant, and decided to temporarily use geographical blocking until they can be compliant.

AJRF 8y ago
It took them 2 years to realise that? That’s the same as not caring.
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  When you have competing priorities and finite time and budget, people often don't investigate external requirements, assuming that they'll just comply when they no longer have a choice. That's why the first few audits (SOX, PCI, etc...) for a company new to them, are always such a struggle, people starting to look at the months of work needed the same week the auditors are planned to come in. edit/PS: Did you notice how many "We changed our policy" emails you've received in the past 2 weeks, including from very large international companies like google, yahoo, etc... Companies for which not being open for business in Europe would have financially impact. Probably a good indication that they ended up with a lot more work to comply that they had anticipated, and still made it just in time. Now imagine the same situation in smaller companies running on very thin resources that cannot afford a sudden increase in staff!
- dexterdog 8y ago
  They were not remotely thinking about this 2 years ago.

kodablah 8y ago

> However, I hope they will rectify and allow access again for EU users at some point soon. Honestly, I don't. I don't want this precedent of government overreach to stand. I wish more international companies would stop doing business with US citizens for the same reasons. > It seems to go against the idea of a borderless internet, and I blame the companies for that, not the EU. You don't blame border-based rules for harming the traditional borderless approach? How illogical.

oblio 8y ago
> Honestly, I don't. I don't want this precedent of government overreach to stand. Why is it overreach? It's literally why we invented government! I, the little guy, couldn't find giants like Facebook or Google. That's why I asked my democratically elected government to work on the problem.
- kodablah 8y ago
  To me it's overreach because smaller measures could have been a better first step, this won't help the problem much, and it hurts the non-targets. I understand it's why you asked your government to work on the problem. We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one.
  - oblio 8y ago
    > We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one. Just because the government does something, that thing is bad? I don't understand your logic... I quite like what they've done.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      No, just because they do something doesn't mean it's good. I don't like it, but then again I don't like the cloud act, some dmca provisions, etc. We can disagree whether the law is good or not, it's just that this topic (not you specifically) causes people to assume being against the legislation means being against its purpose. I think there were many better ways to work on the problem.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Blocking access at geographic level across pretty clear signal they don't care about users/readers in those regions They can't make money off of you because the ad networks can't operate, so all EU users are a cost.