> The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I th

> The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention: > why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cannot be signed away. For example, it's usually illegal to sell yourself into slavery. In the GDPR's view, privacy is such a right. Do you think the government should not be able to stop these transactions at all, or do you think privacy should not fall into that category? Or a different objection I haven't thought of. --- I have my own views, but I'm not really interested in arguing them. It largely comes down to what moral system you subscribe to, which I think is a waste of time to discuss on HN (or any public forum) -- there's too many people on the internet to argue with everyone you disagree with; better to learn to get along, and focus advocacy on communities closer to home. As for why I comment at all: figuring out how to frame issues is not a waste of time — it's much easier (less emotional) and provides a useful reference for future conversation.