4 ms·

One nasty side effect is some large organisations are shutting out Europe. I can no longer access severs popular US based sites and instead get messages about t

One nasty side effect is some large organisations are shutting out Europe. I can no longer access severs popular US based sites and instead get messages about the content not being available in your region. (Most recently: latimes.con and fox8.com)

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
That's also fine - was their content worth your privacy? If they can't be GDPR compliant we don't want them.
- Jyaif 8y ago
  > was their content worth your privacy? What privacy was I losing?
  - pmontra 8y ago
    First one that comes to my mind: their advertisers knowing you're on those sites, which page you read, when, for how long, etc. This is mitigated by running an Adblocker and a selective Javascript disabling extension like uMatrix or NoScript, but it would be much better if those sites would let their readers decide if they want to be tracked or not. Anyway, I'm also blocked on those sites but the same news on LA Times and Fox appear on countless other sites. I'm not losing anything, they're not wasting power and bandwidth for a freeloader. Win/win.
    - mike22223333 8y ago
      If you agree to pay $10 a month per paper, then you could have it. But majority of people have proven that they will not pay, hence it does not justify to have a paid subscription system without ads. When more and more people block ads, there will only be a few large sites remaining on the internet because the rest will not be able to survive in the most likely scenario. You could cry all about your freedom then.
      - pmontra 8y ago
        It that ever happens I can go back buying newspapers as I did before they moved on the Internet. I bet some of them will always be free, but if only a few of them will be we should be very careful about what we read.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  Maybe you don’t but can you speak for everyone? The poster seemed to think that was undesirable.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    We, the people of the EU, have democratically decided that we don't want them.
    - _nosaj 8y ago
      How did that democracy work with articles 11 and 13? The European Union is the antithesis of democracy. If it wasn't, those directives would never have passed.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        Democracy does not mean that every decision is good.
        oytis 8y ago
        Democracy can also undermine itself. If people "democratically" decide they don't want free speech or private property, it's not a democracy any more. I don't assert it's exactly what articles 11 and 13 are doing, but it's a step in this direction.
      - rdlecler1 8y ago
        And the power to use proxies and non personal emails.
    - oytis 8y ago
      I see a problem with people (even democratically) deciding for me. I'd rather like it to be settled down between myself and the website owner.
      - anoncake 8y ago
- nbardy 8y ago
  If you didn't think their content was worth it you didn't have to visit. Now no one can.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    You can only make that choice if you're informed about the tradeoff. Getting sites to inform users is the main purpose of the GDPR. It's not the EU's fault that the LA Times would rather block people than do that.
- yardstick 8y ago
  Was their content worth my privacy? I will never know as they will not let me see it. Besides, if they didn’t block me, I can always ensure my privacy to a reasonable degree by using private browsing mode on my browser. That requires very little effort, unlike what I would have to do now — use some VPN provider who quite likely would be monitoring ALL my data not just to that site.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    You certainly don't need to use a VPN - much less one that routes all your traffic - to access a site from another place. I suggest: https://outline.com/ https://outline.com/

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

That's also fine - was their content worth your privacy? If they can't be GDPR compliant we don't want them.

Jyaif 8y ago
> was their content worth your privacy? What privacy was I losing?
- pmontra 8y ago
  First one that comes to my mind: their advertisers knowing you're on those sites, which page you read, when, for how long, etc. This is mitigated by running an Adblocker and a selective Javascript disabling extension like uMatrix or NoScript, but it would be much better if those sites would let their readers decide if they want to be tracked or not. Anyway, I'm also blocked on those sites but the same news on LA Times and Fox appear on countless other sites. I'm not losing anything, they're not wasting power and bandwidth for a freeloader. Win/win.
  - mike22223333 8y ago
    If you agree to pay $10 a month per paper, then you could have it. But majority of people have proven that they will not pay, hence it does not justify to have a paid subscription system without ads. When more and more people block ads, there will only be a few large sites remaining on the internet because the rest will not be able to survive in the most likely scenario. You could cry all about your freedom then.
    - pmontra 8y ago
      It that ever happens I can go back buying newspapers as I did before they moved on the Internet. I bet some of them will always be free, but if only a few of them will be we should be very careful about what we read.
rdlecler1 8y ago
Maybe you don’t but can you speak for everyone? The poster seemed to think that was undesirable.
- anoncake 8y ago
  We, the people of the EU, have democratically decided that we don't want them.
  - _nosaj 8y ago
    How did that democracy work with articles 11 and 13? The European Union is the antithesis of democracy. If it wasn't, those directives would never have passed.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Democracy does not mean that every decision is good.
      - oytis 8y ago
        Democracy can also undermine itself. If people "democratically" decide they don't want free speech or private property, it's not a democracy any more. I don't assert it's exactly what articles 11 and 13 are doing, but it's a step in this direction.
    - rdlecler1 8y ago
      And the power to use proxies and non personal emails.
  - oytis 8y ago
    I see a problem with people (even democratically) deciding for me. I'd rather like it to be settled down between myself and the website owner.
    - anoncake 8y ago
nbardy 8y ago
If you didn't think their content was worth it you didn't have to visit. Now no one can.
- icebraining 8y ago
  You can only make that choice if you're informed about the tradeoff. Getting sites to inform users is the main purpose of the GDPR. It's not the EU's fault that the LA Times would rather block people than do that.
yardstick 8y ago
Was their content worth my privacy? I will never know as they will not let me see it. Besides, if they didn’t block me, I can always ensure my privacy to a reasonable degree by using private browsing mode on my browser. That requires very little effort, unlike what I would have to do now — use some VPN provider who quite likely would be monitoring ALL my data not just to that site.
- icebraining 8y ago
  You certainly don't need to use a VPN - much less one that routes all your traffic - to access a site from another place. I suggest: https://outline.com/ https://outline.com/