6 ms·

I don't care if they go sovereign, but the GDPR crap is annoying. Would be funny if the US just forced them to get rid of it.

ambicapter 7mo ago
You don't have to interact with GDPR if you don't use EU companies?
- piva00 7mo ago
  Not even that, if they aren't living in the EU the GDPR doesn't affect their lives in any way.
  - KeplerBoy 7mo ago
    unless your customers are EU citizens.
    - oblio 7mo ago
      Can't have the cake (EU money) and eat it (ignore EU laws), too.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
    If the EU announced that non-EU entities aren't subject to GDPR, I think that would substantially defuse and perhaps entirely eliminate the conflict. Their current guidance is precisely the opposite (https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/): "the GDPR applies to you even if you’re not in the EU". They even have a details page to make sure it's 100% clear (https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/): if you're a Colorado company with more than 250 employees, selling mainly to other Colorado businesses, the GDPR applies to you in full and the EU claims the authority to levy fines against you for violations.
    - microtonal 7mo ago
      Why would they need to defuse it? If you want to do business in our market, abide by our laws. If not... just leave and miss out on the huge market? I cannot understand the constant whining of Apple and other companies, whereas if the PRC asks to jump, they ask 'how high'?
      - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        I don't understand your response. As I said, the EU's position is that it doesn't matter whether you "just leave", because the GDPR still applies to companies who are not located in the EU and do not do business in the EU.
        piva00 7mo ago
        If you are selling to EU residents you are doing business in the EU, no?
        SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        I get why people find this hard to believe, because it is kind of a crazy rule, but I repeat once again that this does not matter. Even if you have never sold a single product to an EU resident, and never plan to do so, the EU says as my original comment detailed that you are subject to the GDPR the instant an EU resident provides you with personal data. (And of course, it's also the case that "selling to an EU resident" is substantially broader than "doing business in the EU" - EU residents do often travel to foreign countries and provide personal data to stores they transact with while there.)
        oblio 7mo ago
        I've read your links and you're misreading them. 1. GDPR applies to EU residents in the EU. The protection does not apply to EU residents going on trips to the US. 2. Based on the examples they've presented, there is a SUPER clean solution to your concerns. Geo-blocking. Problem solved, bye bye GDPR. But don't go crying for EU citizen money, can't have it both ways. Just read the examples they present, they're fairly well written.
embedding-shape 7mo ago
If you're not in the EU, what even is the impact on you that was caused by GDPR? You're essentially not affected by it unless you run a business, which now you need to take greater care of the personal data you store. Is that what's annoying you or what?
- delecti 7mo ago
  The EU is to blame for cookie banners on basically every website on the internet. I wish the US had something similar, and that there was more enforcement of disallowing "accept all" buttons without an equivalent "reject all" option. I also recognize that websites don't need the banner if they aren't trying to track me, but lets not pretend there aren't annoying consequences.
  - ryandrake 7mo ago
    First, cookie banners are associated with a totally different legislation, not GDPR, and they began appearing long before GDPR existed. Second, the EU is not to blame for cookie banners. Companies doing tracking via cookies are to blame. They always have the option to not have a cookie banner--just don't do the things that require cookie banners. They deliberately choose to do these things, and then people complain about the banners.
    - hrimfaxi 7mo ago
      In California, where everything can give you cancer, do people consider that a failure of the companies putting the notices on everything, or a failure of government?
      - wat10000 7mo ago
        That's a failure of government because the law mandates the notice in so many places that it becomes pointless noise. Cookie banners are not analogous. It's easy to make a web site that doesn't need cookie banners. It's actually easier to make a site that doesn't need them than to make one that does. Adding in the tracking that requires banner takes effort. But companies prefer to put in that effort and annoy their users so they can have that tracking. That's 100% on them, not on the government.

ambicapter 7mo ago

You don't have to interact with GDPR if you don't use EU companies?

piva00 7mo ago
Not even that, if they aren't living in the EU the GDPR doesn't affect their lives in any way.
- KeplerBoy 7mo ago
  unless your customers are EU citizens.
  - oblio 7mo ago
    Can't have the cake (EU money) and eat it (ignore EU laws), too.
- SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
  If the EU announced that non-EU entities aren't subject to GDPR, I think that would substantially defuse and perhaps entirely eliminate the conflict. Their current guidance is precisely the opposite (https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/): "the GDPR applies to you even if you’re not in the EU". They even have a details page to make sure it's 100% clear (https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/): if you're a Colorado company with more than 250 employees, selling mainly to other Colorado businesses, the GDPR applies to you in full and the EU claims the authority to levy fines against you for violations.
  - microtonal 7mo ago
    Why would they need to defuse it? If you want to do business in our market, abide by our laws. If not... just leave and miss out on the huge market? I cannot understand the constant whining of Apple and other companies, whereas if the PRC asks to jump, they ask 'how high'?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
      I don't understand your response. As I said, the EU's position is that it doesn't matter whether you "just leave", because the GDPR still applies to companies who are not located in the EU and do not do business in the EU.
      - piva00 7mo ago
        If you are selling to EU residents you are doing business in the EU, no?
        SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        I get why people find this hard to believe, because it is kind of a crazy rule, but I repeat once again that this does not matter. Even if you have never sold a single product to an EU resident, and never plan to do so, the EU says as my original comment detailed that you are subject to the GDPR the instant an EU resident provides you with personal data. (And of course, it's also the case that "selling to an EU resident" is substantially broader than "doing business in the EU" - EU residents do often travel to foreign countries and provide personal data to stores they transact with while there.)
        oblio 7mo ago
        I've read your links and you're misreading them. 1. GDPR applies to EU residents in the EU. The protection does not apply to EU residents going on trips to the US. 2. Based on the examples they've presented, there is a SUPER clean solution to your concerns. Geo-blocking. Problem solved, bye bye GDPR. But don't go crying for EU citizen money, can't have it both ways. Just read the examples they present, they're fairly well written.

embedding-shape 7mo ago

If you're not in the EU, what even is the impact on you that was caused by GDPR? You're essentially not affected by it unless you run a business, which now you need to take greater care of the personal data you store. Is that what's annoying you or what?

delecti 7mo ago
The EU is to blame for cookie banners on basically every website on the internet. I wish the US had something similar, and that there was more enforcement of disallowing "accept all" buttons without an equivalent "reject all" option. I also recognize that websites don't need the banner if they aren't trying to track me, but lets not pretend there aren't annoying consequences.
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  First, cookie banners are associated with a totally different legislation, not GDPR, and they began appearing long before GDPR existed. Second, the EU is not to blame for cookie banners. Companies doing tracking via cookies are to blame. They always have the option to not have a cookie banner--just don't do the things that require cookie banners. They deliberately choose to do these things, and then people complain about the banners.
  - hrimfaxi 7mo ago
    In California, where everything can give you cancer, do people consider that a failure of the companies putting the notices on everything, or a failure of government?
    - wat10000 7mo ago
      That's a failure of government because the law mandates the notice in so many places that it becomes pointless noise. Cookie banners are not analogous. It's easy to make a web site that doesn't need cookie banners. It's actually easier to make a site that doesn't need them than to make one that does. Adding in the tracking that requires banner takes effort. But companies prefer to put in that effort and annoy their users so they can have that tracking. That's 100% on them, not on the government.