6 ms·

I live in a small EU country. There are many, many american sites that just block the whole EU IP ranges becaus they don't want to deal with GDPR.

ttt3ts 2y ago
I have done that exact configuration for several of my clients who didn't realize any/much revenue in the EU. For them it was the obvious best move but I wish there was a better option.
poincaredisk 2y ago
Are there? I only someones stumble upon some medical website that redirects me to a "tracking free" empty static page[1] if I come from Europe and opt-out of cookies (which I always do anyway). Maybe we visit other parts of the internet, I don't read a lot of non-IT English things. [1]A big troll that I respect.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Absolutely. Many small regional newspapers are inaccessible from Europe; omny.info (which would be very interesting to tourists visiting NYC, as you can pull your trip reports there) bans most EU IPs too (but weirdly leaves some countries open). Most frustrating is not even being able to cancel things like a US streaming service subscription from an EU IP (of course these things usually have no contact email address available either).
- miki123211 2y ago
  A lot of local American newspapers do this. Europeans usually have no reason to read these, the only reason I know is that I googled a few of my American friends at one point and kept hitting these.
throwaway920102 2y ago
> they don't want to deal with GDPR or cannot afford to. add in DSA and DMA as additional burdens.
menacingly 2y ago
I'm surprised I don't see it more. You can't impose a regulatory burden more troublesome than your traffic is worth
- literallycancer 2y ago
  Sadly the EU doesn't really communicate this very well, and doesn't care to call out outright propaganda from ad tech and surveillance businesses, but the regulation is not actually hard to be compliant with. It literally just asks that you don't spy on people. That's it. Not spying on users? Great, you don't even have to do anything. I would be extremely surprised to see any attempt at enforcement against a website that didn't collect PII on some technicality such as not having the right footer or a contact person.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    It's slightly more involved than this, but not extraordinarily so. For example seemingly innocuous implementations like loading fonts directly off Google Fonts without consent (i.e. providing Google with information about visitors' browsing habits) would technically be on the wrong side of the GDPR, but I think it's very unlikely that anyone would complain about it, legally speaking.
    - MaulingMonkey 2y ago
      > would technically be on the wrong side of the GDPR, but I think it's very unlikely that anyone would complain about it, legally speaking. The American in me says that sounds like "someone will definitely complain about it, eventually, if only because they're hoping for a payout".
      - seszett 2y ago
        Maybe that's the problem, I thought the (mostly local media) companies that were blocking EU citizens were doing it out of spite or to make a point, because it doesn't make sense (for one, they're not subject to gdpr if they don't explicitly do business with EU citizens). But maybe it's just because the US environment is so hostile that they assume it's the same in the EU. But national regulators in the EU don't waste their time with foreign companies that might by oversight not be totally compliant since they're not even under their jurisdiction (worst is they could be fined and have to pay it if ever they incorporate in that country in the near future? Nobody's going to waste time in that). And nobody can sue a company on gdpr grounds and get a payout. They're only fines, they benefit to central states and are a negligible amount in regard to national budgets.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Hey, this is me, I do this.
- literallycancer 2y ago
  You are likely overreacting. If you don't slap random trackers on the website, it doesn't ask you to do much at all.
skissane 2y ago
I’ve been noticing more and more US state and local government websites blocking traffic from outside the US. (And I’m not talking about traffic from North Korea, I’m talking about traffic from ANZUS/AUKUS/FVEY ally Australia.) It seems stupid because just because someone is overseas doesn’t mean they can’t have valid business with a US state or local government. Maybe they are an American who is travelling and has to attend to some official business back home while they are away. Foreigners are allowed to purchase US real estate and incorporate companies in the US, which gives them heaps of legitimate reasons for interacting with local and state governments. In part due to these kinds of issues, many use some local agent in the US to handle government interactions for them, but a person can have valid reasons to engage directly.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Well, perhaps Australia should stop threatening non-Australian websites that don’t comply with AUS law.
  - skissane 2y ago
    I’ve never heard of any Australian authorities making legal demands of US state and local governments. I don’t necessarily agree with various official Australian attempts to impose Australian law on foreign non-government websites, but I don’t see how that is relevant to whether US governmental websites permit access from Australia
    - joatmon-snoo 2y ago
      It's much easier to say "I'm going to make it impossible for us to have to worry about the Australian government filing a lawsuit against $my-state-agency, because legal said so" than "Well, if we allow Australian IPs to access this website, there's a 0.x% chance that we get sued by Australia, but it's worth it for the sake of the 0.00x% of American expats in Australia." Here's a analogously real example from current US-Ukraine policy: > For example, one current social goal in the U.S., given the geopolitical conflict with Russia, is to avoid facilitating activities that could aid the adversary. As Russia has invaded Ukraine, the U.S. has positioned itself in opposition to Russia but not Ukraine. Banks, therefore, need to align with these geopolitical stances, leading to decisions that might catch some individuals in the crossfire, even if they’re not directly involved. > Financial institutions often interpret this as: if they're not deeply specialized in doing business in Ukraine, they should avoid it altogether. They fear they won’t be able to consistently ensure compliance with these complex directives from the government [especially because there's a chance those directives might change in a week, or a month, or 3 months]. > This creates a split-brain problem within U.S. decision-making. The government intends to say, "Please cut down on oligarch money laundering that supports Russia’s war effort." However, financial institutions hear this as, "Under no circumstances should you fund anything related to Ukraine," including, for example, scholarships for Ukrainian high schoolers—a slight exaggeration, but not far from the reality in some cases. (source: https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/true-crime-banking-edition/ https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/true-crime-ba...)

ttt3ts 2y ago

I have done that exact configuration for several of my clients who didn't realize any/much revenue in the EU. For them it was the obvious best move but I wish there was a better option.

poincaredisk 2y ago

Are there? I only someones stumble upon some medical website that redirects me to a "tracking free" empty static page[1] if I come from Europe and opt-out of cookies (which I always do anyway). Maybe we visit other parts of the internet, I don't read a lot of non-IT English things. [1]A big troll that I respect.

lxgr 2y ago
Absolutely. Many small regional newspapers are inaccessible from Europe; omny.info (which would be very interesting to tourists visiting NYC, as you can pull your trip reports there) bans most EU IPs too (but weirdly leaves some countries open). Most frustrating is not even being able to cancel things like a US streaming service subscription from an EU IP (of course these things usually have no contact email address available either).
miki123211 2y ago
A lot of local American newspapers do this. Europeans usually have no reason to read these, the only reason I know is that I googled a few of my American friends at one point and kept hitting these.

throwaway920102 2y ago

> they don't want to deal with GDPR or cannot afford to. add in DSA and DMA as additional burdens.

menacingly 2y ago

I'm surprised I don't see it more. You can't impose a regulatory burden more troublesome than your traffic is worth

literallycancer 2y ago
Sadly the EU doesn't really communicate this very well, and doesn't care to call out outright propaganda from ad tech and surveillance businesses, but the regulation is not actually hard to be compliant with. It literally just asks that you don't spy on people. That's it. Not spying on users? Great, you don't even have to do anything. I would be extremely surprised to see any attempt at enforcement against a website that didn't collect PII on some technicality such as not having the right footer or a contact person.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  It's slightly more involved than this, but not extraordinarily so. For example seemingly innocuous implementations like loading fonts directly off Google Fonts without consent (i.e. providing Google with information about visitors' browsing habits) would technically be on the wrong side of the GDPR, but I think it's very unlikely that anyone would complain about it, legally speaking.
  - MaulingMonkey 2y ago
    > would technically be on the wrong side of the GDPR, but I think it's very unlikely that anyone would complain about it, legally speaking. The American in me says that sounds like "someone will definitely complain about it, eventually, if only because they're hoping for a payout".
    - seszett 2y ago
      Maybe that's the problem, I thought the (mostly local media) companies that were blocking EU citizens were doing it out of spite or to make a point, because it doesn't make sense (for one, they're not subject to gdpr if they don't explicitly do business with EU citizens). But maybe it's just because the US environment is so hostile that they assume it's the same in the EU. But national regulators in the EU don't waste their time with foreign companies that might by oversight not be totally compliant since they're not even under their jurisdiction (worst is they could be fined and have to pay it if ever they incorporate in that country in the near future? Nobody's going to waste time in that). And nobody can sue a company on gdpr grounds and get a payout. They're only fines, they benefit to central states and are a negligible amount in regard to national budgets.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Hey, this is me, I do this.

literallycancer 2y ago
You are likely overreacting. If you don't slap random trackers on the website, it doesn't ask you to do much at all.

skissane 2y ago

I’ve been noticing more and more US state and local government websites blocking traffic from outside the US. (And I’m not talking about traffic from North Korea, I’m talking about traffic from ANZUS/AUKUS/FVEY ally Australia.) It seems stupid because just because someone is overseas doesn’t mean they can’t have valid business with a US state or local government. Maybe they are an American who is travelling and has to attend to some official business back home while they are away. Foreigners are allowed to purchase US real estate and incorporate companies in the US, which gives them heaps of legitimate reasons for interacting with local and state governments. In part due to these kinds of issues, many use some local agent in the US to handle government interactions for them, but a person can have valid reasons to engage directly.

adastra22 2y ago
Well, perhaps Australia should stop threatening non-Australian websites that don’t comply with AUS law.
- skissane 2y ago
  I’ve never heard of any Australian authorities making legal demands of US state and local governments. I don’t necessarily agree with various official Australian attempts to impose Australian law on foreign non-government websites, but I don’t see how that is relevant to whether US governmental websites permit access from Australia
  - joatmon-snoo 2y ago
    It's much easier to say "I'm going to make it impossible for us to have to worry about the Australian government filing a lawsuit against $my-state-agency, because legal said so" than "Well, if we allow Australian IPs to access this website, there's a 0.x% chance that we get sued by Australia, but it's worth it for the sake of the 0.00x% of American expats in Australia." Here's a analogously real example from current US-Ukraine policy: > For example, one current social goal in the U.S., given the geopolitical conflict with Russia, is to avoid facilitating activities that could aid the adversary. As Russia has invaded Ukraine, the U.S. has positioned itself in opposition to Russia but not Ukraine. Banks, therefore, need to align with these geopolitical stances, leading to decisions that might catch some individuals in the crossfire, even if they’re not directly involved. > Financial institutions often interpret this as: if they're not deeply specialized in doing business in Ukraine, they should avoid it altogether. They fear they won’t be able to consistently ensure compliance with these complex directives from the government [especially because there's a chance those directives might change in a week, or a month, or 3 months]. > This creates a split-brain problem within U.S. decision-making. The government intends to say, "Please cut down on oligarch money laundering that supports Russia’s war effort." However, financial institutions hear this as, "Under no circumstances should you fund anything related to Ukraine," including, for example, scholarships for Ukrainian high schoolers—a slight exaggeration, but not far from the reality in some cases. (source: https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/true-crime-banking-edition/ https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/true-crime-ba...)