What it means for me personally is that The Washinton Post as well as the NPR can't be relied upon for reporting news, since they are apparently unable to even

What it means for me personally is that The Washinton Post as well as the NPR can't be relied upon for reporting news, since they are apparently unable to even marginally interpret a legal document aiming for clarity and instead channel their incompetence into snarky behaviour that still isn't compliant with the GDPR. To wit (washpo): "You consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us and third parties to provide you with personalized ads" Where is the "No I don't. Just give me regular/random ads" button? and, "Premium EU subscription" "No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking" There's nothing specifically EU about that, in fact, it sounds like a good service to offer to all your readers. But still, there's a big difference between on-site advertising and third-party ad tracking, and that difference is at the heart of the GDPR. A half decent journalist could have figured that out. Maybe that's their real problem. But most importantly, and frighteningly, instead of these two stunts being knee-jerk backlash reactions, maybe they're serious and most data-peddlers aren't shady figures in smoke-filled backrooms, but simply the fourth estate en large.