> Cookie popups. Enough said. except a lot of the things related to cookie popups isn't GDPR but other (misguided older) laws furthermore setting a (proper 1s

> Cookie popups. Enough said. except a lot of the things related to cookie popups isn't GDPR but other (misguided older) laws furthermore setting a (proper 1st party and HTTP only) cookie to remember you opted out of tracking doesn't require your explicit consent and as such any side which ask you again and again makes it extra hard to opt out in a way _not legally compliant with GDPR_. also the do not track flag in a browser is a very clear unmistakable signal from the user that they don't want to be tracked, ignoring it and harassing the user with tracking dialogs is also not GDPR compliant > 2. Its extraterratoriality claims. It's based on your citizens data being owned by your citizens. Extraterritorial claims about your citizens is pretty normal. And only enforced things matter so basically it only matters if they do business in the EU. And requiring someone who does business in another country to comply with that countries laws is the norm. Just because you do it "through a website" doesn't mean you can doge responsibility. That would be absurd. > 3. The annual moderation report. if it's moderation deletion then that isn't GDPR but other laws, and the reports which are needed for GDPR can be trivially automatized. > 4. The misperception that GDPR any half way serious source is pretty clear about that and there isn't much law makers can do if people are to dump to read and then insist they know better The main issues is still enforcement, or the systematic lack of it in all kinds of ways. Due to that bad companies don't try comply with GDPR but with "what level of systematic intentional GDPR violation can we get away with" and that in turn leads to legal unreliability/unclear-ness. Oh and that some business models are inherently incompatible with it and instead of judges being like "bad luck you had years to adapt" they are often hesitant to do much about it (like "pure abos" which deceive the end-user (and judges) with a false dichotomy about ads vs. no ads when the laws is about tracking vs. no tracking and you can have ads without tracking, just not google ads but that is a googles made problem not a fundamentally one).