7 ms·

“Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support ou

by mxstbr 8y ago

“Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.” Yeah I can really see how that impacts Fred Rogers /s How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced.

ucaetano 8y ago
> How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced. Why should they even bother?
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Especially for a regional newspaper.
- oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
  To make money? I mean, they can choose to do that in whatever way they like, their decision to lock out such a huge market just seems odd.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    They’re a local paper. They cover 100% of their market already.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > To make money? The fact that they aren't doing it is a god signal that those users aren't worth the cost. You can't pass regulation and then complain that companies don't want to do business with you. So why should they?
twblalock 8y ago
> How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced. I can understand why a newspaper whose subscriber base is in southern California would not want to spend the time and money necessary to comply with European privacy regulations. It's unlikely that the benefits for the business would outweigh the costs.
- ErrantX 8y ago
  I suppose the implicit question is more; what are they doing that is likely to be in violation of some (relatively mundane, tbf) privacy regulations. The only thing gdpr really changed was the size of the fine...
  - drb91 8y ago
    Using a cookie for non-essential functionality would be enough.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > what are they doing that is likely to be in violation of some (relatively mundane, tbf) privacy regulations. Why should they even bother spending resources understanding those regulations? The decision is pretty straightforward for them. Don't like it? Go complain with the regulators.
    - Aeolun 8y ago
      Uh, obvious reasons? The fact that they block EU visitors might not hurt them, but the fact that those people complain on sites used by US visitors will.
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        > will Nah, people whinning on hackernews is pretty much irrelevant.
- vladd 8y ago
CydeWeys 8y ago
And this from the fourth largest newspaper in the entire US and the largest newspaper of the second largest city, no less. I just in Europe last week and it was infuriating how many US-based newspapers couldn't even be loaded. Americans travel abroad, and foreigners read domestic news sources. The LA Times isn't just local news; it's cited widely in, say, Wikipedia articles, and those are read globally. So to refuse to display any content in Europe is a huge middle finger.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Do you believe LA Times misjudged their cost-benefit analysis of EU publication? Or do you think a cost-benefit is the wrong approach?
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Both.
  - gpm 8y ago
    Both. The cost to providing a minimal EU only view (using the inverse of the current "should I block" function) that complies with the GDPR should be near 0. The benefit, both in terms of advertising revenue, and network affects driving more non-EU viewers, should be high. It's not plausible to me that an accurate cost-benefit analysis says "don't publish to the EU". Separately, as journalists I expect them to be willing to spend some amount of effort (and it shouldn't take much) to report as widely as possible, even if a strict cost-benefit analysis suggests they shouldn't. The fact that they aren't willing to do this brings their motivation, and thus their integrity, into question.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      What do they do when some EU citizen decides to sue to be forgotten for some misdeed? A big newspaper has a target on its back for GDPR trouble, and they have enough trouble already. Blocking access is the pragmatic answer — most other organizations are just ignoring it.
    - 8y ago
bnchrch 8y ago
I'm going to present an unpopular opinion: Why should they? I'm all for a free & open internet but I'm not for the internet complying to regulations set by governing bodies that do not represent the entire globe. I believe that if a government should choose to attempt to regulate and enforce what we can build online and how then they (and their constituents) should be dealt with in a hostile manner.
EvilTerran 8y ago
I use outline.com to get past these attempts to block the EU: https://outline.com/BF9AaC https://outline.com/BF9AaC It almost always works. As does archive.is, if you want to see more of the page's original layout.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  I'm curious: So what you're saying is that you don't value the ideas put forth in the GDPR, because you want the content so badly that you'll bypass a block based upon it? Because if so, it totally validates their decision to not spend resources on it.
  - alangpierce 8y ago
    Copyright issues aside, my impression is that this solution is mostly in the spirit of GDPR. LA Times doesn't want to take the legal risk of being accidentally non-compliant (or doesn't want to go through the effort just yet), and outline.com is willing to act as a "wrapper website" that serves LA Times content while also following all EU rules around cookies. That means people in the EU are able to access the content without losing any privacy rights around cookies. But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      I don't see what "legal worry" there could be if they're not abusing personal data. They could provide a plain-text website (even with ads, since the providers are probably all doing business in the EU) or link to outline.com, which would at least gain them the reputation of somebody having read a good article from them.
    - EvilTerran 8y ago
      Well said. You've elucidated my thinking better than I could. Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to. I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.
justin66 8y ago
At least they're blocking out of a fear of litigation. They'll figure it out eventually. In contrast, the BBC blocks a lot content from international viewing just because they're cheap.
- lovemenot 8y ago
  The BBC has a charter that mandates they serve the people of Britain. Its implementation is complex, but overall it is necessary to allow for more than just market forces.

by mxstbr 8y ago

ucaetano 8y ago

> How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced. Why should they even bother?

paulddraper 8y ago
Especially for a regional newspaper.
oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
To make money? I mean, they can choose to do that in whatever way they like, their decision to lock out such a huge market just seems odd.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  They’re a local paper. They cover 100% of their market already.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > To make money? The fact that they aren't doing it is a god signal that those users aren't worth the cost. You can't pass regulation and then complain that companies don't want to do business with you. So why should they?

twblalock 8y ago

> How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced. I can understand why a newspaper whose subscriber base is in southern California would not want to spend the time and money necessary to comply with European privacy regulations. It's unlikely that the benefits for the business would outweigh the costs.

ErrantX 8y ago
I suppose the implicit question is more; what are they doing that is likely to be in violation of some (relatively mundane, tbf) privacy regulations. The only thing gdpr really changed was the size of the fine...
- drb91 8y ago
  Using a cookie for non-essential functionality would be enough.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > what are they doing that is likely to be in violation of some (relatively mundane, tbf) privacy regulations. Why should they even bother spending resources understanding those regulations? The decision is pretty straightforward for them. Don't like it? Go complain with the regulators.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    Uh, obvious reasons? The fact that they block EU visitors might not hurt them, but the fact that those people complain on sites used by US visitors will.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > will Nah, people whinning on hackernews is pretty much irrelevant.
vladd 8y ago

CydeWeys 8y ago

And this from the fourth largest newspaper in the entire US and the largest newspaper of the second largest city, no less. I just in Europe last week and it was infuriating how many US-based newspapers couldn't even be loaded. Americans travel abroad, and foreigners read domestic news sources. The LA Times isn't just local news; it's cited widely in, say, Wikipedia articles, and those are read globally. So to refuse to display any content in Europe is a huge middle finger.

paulddraper 8y ago
Do you believe LA Times misjudged their cost-benefit analysis of EU publication? Or do you think a cost-benefit is the wrong approach?
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  Both.
- gpm 8y ago
  Both. The cost to providing a minimal EU only view (using the inverse of the current "should I block" function) that complies with the GDPR should be near 0. The benefit, both in terms of advertising revenue, and network affects driving more non-EU viewers, should be high. It's not plausible to me that an accurate cost-benefit analysis says "don't publish to the EU". Separately, as journalists I expect them to be willing to spend some amount of effort (and it shouldn't take much) to report as widely as possible, even if a strict cost-benefit analysis suggests they shouldn't. The fact that they aren't willing to do this brings their motivation, and thus their integrity, into question.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    What do they do when some EU citizen decides to sue to be forgotten for some misdeed? A big newspaper has a target on its back for GDPR trouble, and they have enough trouble already. Blocking access is the pragmatic answer — most other organizations are just ignoring it.
  - 8y ago

bnchrch 8y ago

I'm going to present an unpopular opinion: Why should they? I'm all for a free & open internet but I'm not for the internet complying to regulations set by governing bodies that do not represent the entire globe. I believe that if a government should choose to attempt to regulate and enforce what we can build online and how then they (and their constituents) should be dealt with in a hostile manner.

EvilTerran 8y ago

I use outline.com to get past these attempts to block the EU: https://outline.com/BF9AaC https://outline.com/BF9AaC It almost always works. As does archive.is, if you want to see more of the page's original layout.

cabaalis 8y ago
I'm curious: So what you're saying is that you don't value the ideas put forth in the GDPR, because you want the content so badly that you'll bypass a block based upon it? Because if so, it totally validates their decision to not spend resources on it.
- alangpierce 8y ago
  Copyright issues aside, my impression is that this solution is mostly in the spirit of GDPR. LA Times doesn't want to take the legal risk of being accidentally non-compliant (or doesn't want to go through the effort just yet), and outline.com is willing to act as a "wrapper website" that serves LA Times content while also following all EU rules around cookies. That means people in the EU are able to access the content without losing any privacy rights around cookies. But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    I don't see what "legal worry" there could be if they're not abusing personal data. They could provide a plain-text website (even with ads, since the providers are probably all doing business in the EU) or link to outline.com, which would at least gain them the reputation of somebody having read a good article from them.
  - EvilTerran 8y ago
    Well said. You've elucidated my thinking better than I could. Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to. I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.

justin66 8y ago

At least they're blocking out of a fear of litigation. They'll figure it out eventually. In contrast, the BBC blocks a lot content from international viewing just because they're cheap.

lovemenot 8y ago
The BBC has a charter that mandates they serve the people of Britain. Its implementation is complex, but overall it is necessary to allow for more than just market forces.