4 ms·

Fair enough, I suppose. Since I can't read the site, I can't draw any conclusions, but: 1. Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average Europ

Fair enough, I suppose. Since I can't read the site, I can't draw any conclusions, but: 1. Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)? 2. The less intrusive your behaviour is, the less you have to worry about the GDPR. Aren't non-EU readers worried about visiting sites that completely block the EU as a preventive measure? I'm pretty happy to be blocked though. It's a lot more honest and better than the song and dance some outlets put up trying to obfuscate compliance.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
>Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically Hard, probably not. Profitable also probably not.
ptah 7y ago
same here: i feel sorry for those not blocked
wtf_is_up 7y ago
WOWK is a local CBS affiliate in West Virginia. I doubt they are seriously pursuing GDPR compliance and just disabled the site for EU members.
- corodra 7y ago
  You are correct and I don't get why you're getting downvoted. A local news station giving a shit about someone across the pond's rules and regulations? Just block it and be done. Oh no, 10 people in the EU can't find up to the minute news about West Virginia. Y'all must be devastated. Hardly justifies wasting money on getting a lawyer to make sure they stay compliant.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Why not not block it, and be done? What's the EU going to do? Sue them in the EU? Good luck collecting if they West Virginia TV station doesn't have a business office in the EU (which I suspect they don't). Is the EU going to sue them in West Virginia? Yeah, good luck winning that case. So why bother blocking? Not blocking seems even easier than blocking (unless someone is hosting their web presence, and needs EU compliance for some customers, and so just does it for everyone to not have different versions for different customers).
    - corodra 7y ago
      Hmmm, that's a good question. Before I begin, I'm not a lawyer. Just trying to use some logic on the matter. I assume, but I don't know, it's probably just nipping the bud the potential hassle. What if a formal complaint is made? I'm not sure on the process on how an international kerfuffle would roll out. Especially between the EU and a state instead of directly the fed. Would it be made direct to the nation-state instead of state? Anyways, would you want that type of press to begin with? "Coal loving West Virginian local media monopoly based in the United Empire of America is spying and making dirty capitalist money by selling innocent EU citizen data". I had fun writing that :) Think of it this way. 1. Block out an extremely small and useless demographic and no potential bad happenings. 2. Don't block an extremely small/useless demographic and have the potential of having to answer to international litigation. No matter how baseless the fascists at the EU are, an American lawyer still costs money, not hugs and kisses. Just blocking out the EU, using EU rules, is probably far cheaper and easier to deal with than not blocking and facing potential consequences. To anyone looking at this that actually does international law, as a job, please, feel free to chime in.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      It's probably a CBS policy, Viacom does have a European presence, so they are under GDPR purview. It's not a local West Virginia site really.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)? Lots of normal, non-tracking, non-advertising activities run afoul of GDPR (such as detailed request logging), so it isn't that simple. I wish people would realize GDPR is far broader than just advertising surveillance.
- rbritton 7y ago
  It's also hobbled somewhat by the distinct lack of case law or other precedent. Much of it is subject to interpretation rather than explicit, and no one ones to be the poster child for the interpreting.
fred_is_fred 7y ago
West Virginia != Virginia.
- pge 7y ago
  only since 1863...
  - fred_is_fred 7y ago
    It was a rather important year. They were traitorous slaver-owners, we weren't.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

>Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically Hard, probably not. Profitable also probably not.

ptah 7y ago

same here: i feel sorry for those not blocked

wtf_is_up 7y ago

WOWK is a local CBS affiliate in West Virginia. I doubt they are seriously pursuing GDPR compliance and just disabled the site for EU members.

corodra 7y ago
You are correct and I don't get why you're getting downvoted. A local news station giving a shit about someone across the pond's rules and regulations? Just block it and be done. Oh no, 10 people in the EU can't find up to the minute news about West Virginia. Y'all must be devastated. Hardly justifies wasting money on getting a lawyer to make sure they stay compliant.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Why not not block it, and be done? What's the EU going to do? Sue them in the EU? Good luck collecting if they West Virginia TV station doesn't have a business office in the EU (which I suspect they don't). Is the EU going to sue them in West Virginia? Yeah, good luck winning that case. So why bother blocking? Not blocking seems even easier than blocking (unless someone is hosting their web presence, and needs EU compliance for some customers, and so just does it for everyone to not have different versions for different customers).
  - corodra 7y ago
    Hmmm, that's a good question. Before I begin, I'm not a lawyer. Just trying to use some logic on the matter. I assume, but I don't know, it's probably just nipping the bud the potential hassle. What if a formal complaint is made? I'm not sure on the process on how an international kerfuffle would roll out. Especially between the EU and a state instead of directly the fed. Would it be made direct to the nation-state instead of state? Anyways, would you want that type of press to begin with? "Coal loving West Virginian local media monopoly based in the United Empire of America is spying and making dirty capitalist money by selling innocent EU citizen data". I had fun writing that :) Think of it this way. 1. Block out an extremely small and useless demographic and no potential bad happenings. 2. Don't block an extremely small/useless demographic and have the potential of having to answer to international litigation. No matter how baseless the fascists at the EU are, an American lawyer still costs money, not hugs and kisses. Just blocking out the EU, using EU rules, is probably far cheaper and easier to deal with than not blocking and facing potential consequences. To anyone looking at this that actually does international law, as a job, please, feel free to chime in.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    It's probably a CBS policy, Viacom does have a European presence, so they are under GDPR purview. It's not a local West Virginia site really.

vonmoltke 7y ago

> Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)? Lots of normal, non-tracking, non-advertising activities run afoul of GDPR (such as detailed request logging), so it isn't that simple. I wish people would realize GDPR is far broader than just advertising surveillance.

rbritton 7y ago
It's also hobbled somewhat by the distinct lack of case law or other precedent. Much of it is subject to interpretation rather than explicit, and no one ones to be the poster child for the interpreting.

fred_is_fred 7y ago

West Virginia != Virginia.

pge 7y ago
only since 1863...
- fred_is_fred 7y ago
  It was a rather important year. They were traitorous slaver-owners, we weren't.