zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. ryanwa+(OP)[view] [source] 2018-05-18 11:33:17
I think much of this probably comes down to cultural and ideological differences between the US and the EU. It certainly seems that almost all of the rabidly pro-GDPR crowd is from the EU.

Interesting: I have a number of anti-GDPR comments here and on last night’s GDPR thread that got upvotes last night US-time, heavily downvoted throughout the night, and are now going back up :)

replies(4): >>oblio+b8 >>skumme+t8 >>frocki+Pg >>krageo+jy
2. oblio+b8[view] [source] 2018-05-18 12:59:21
>>ryanwa+(OP)
> It certainly seems that almost all of the rabidly pro-GDPR crowd is from the EU.

Hey, from my viewpoint the rabidly anti-GDPR crowd is from the US :p

3. skumme+t8[view] [source] 2018-05-18 13:02:05
>>ryanwa+(OP)
Yeah what a surprise?

Imagine a global paparazzi law banning photos of celebrities from being published without explicit consent.

Celebrities would be happy. Paparazzis and magazine readers not so much.

4. frocki+Pg[view] [source] 2018-05-18 14:10:43
>>ryanwa+(OP)
America innovates, the EU regulates. It's been the story for decades now and there will always be a naturaul tension between innovators and regulators
5. krageo+jy[view] [source] 2018-05-18 16:24:38
>>ryanwa+(OP)
Yes, because being against a law that is both reasonable and the right thing to do doesn't make any sense when you're a real live human being. The hysteria about businesses imploding under legislation is classic internet outrage at a phenomenon not very well understood. If you actually took the time to read the source material, you could very see that it's reasonable and made to protect you. At the same time, you would see that there will not be any world-ending fines handed out for literally no reason (on a slight tangent I don't understand why it is so impossible to grasp that this isn't something that happens in the EU).
replies(1): >>ryanwa+Ob1
◧◩
6. ryanwa+Ob1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 21:34:39
>>krageo+jy
This is a law with good intent that was very poorly written and is very ambiguous. Most of the people with your view posting here aren’t experts in this regulation or the law in general, but just armchair lawyers who scanned this regulation and like the intent so they argue that it’s simple.

Ironically, if you asked 10 different people with that position about basic facts about this law, you’d all have different answers. Maybe if it’s so simple you could all take a few mins to get your story straight on how it works?

[go to top]