Hacker News Reader

> But is it worth the cost of forcing all EU users into not even having the option to use said service for data?

Pretty much everything you stated here is completely wrong. GDPR states that personal information can only be collected on an opt-in basis. Your entire statement therefore is completely off.

Because it has to be freely opt-in you cannot just do an opt-out.

> In my opinion, it would be far far better to force companies to offer a "fair price" paid service in exchange for not collecting data

The GDPR doesn't force to use anything for free.

> GDPR states that personal information can only be collected on an opt-in basis.

I said "use said service for data" which means all or nothing, no ability to use a service and selectively decline the exchange of data that makes the company you are exchanging with money.

> The GDPR doesn't force to use anything for free.

I didn't say anything about that. I just don't like that free online content like the la times is now blocking all of the EU because their business model is incompatible with GDPR and so I would prefer if the law still allowed EU users the choice to accept said business model, or use one that contributes revenue in proportion to the old one so their business model works while also satisfying your wants. Does that make sense/sound reasonable?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you should at least know the basics of the topic you're discussing before leaving nonsensical comments.

Everything you're saying is completely wrong.

What is wrong about it?

> not even having the option to use said service for data

Companies are blocking all of the EU because of GDPR which is denying them the "option to use said service for data". Here is one list so far: https://gdprcasualties.com/

> Thankfully, I don't live in the EU because I would be super pissed about all the websites blocking me because the EU no longer wants to give me the option to trade some data for a free service and I expect it to get a LOT worse once they start actually enacting fines and every company realizes that that they have really been force opting in people to data collection so it is no longer profitable to serve the EU.

I don't know of a single company that now gives users to opt into each data collection so if they actually start throwing down huge fines (which I fully believe they will based on their history), I expect it to get a lot worse.

Are you the sort of person who likes paying protection rackets?

Assuming (correctly) that web sites are untrustworthy data collection bandits, why should they behave well only because a user proved their submission (and their gullibility) by paying them?

> protection rackets

Didn't know what that was until you said it and still not sure how it applies.

> Assuming (correctly) that web sites are untrustworthy data collection bandits, why should they behave well only because a user proved their submission (and their gullibility) by paying them?

I think you are misunderstanding me. I love everything about GDPR except 1 thing and that thing is not allowing companies to tie providing their service in exchange for data so that they can make money because it denies people the CHOICE (key word here) of using said option.

I proposed an option (just pay for the lost revenue the company no longer makes) so that everyone still gets the option to use current revenue models, pro privacy people can pay their fare share for the service, and companies don't blacklist all of the EU for what a portion of the people want. What does not sound fair about that?

It's the other way around. The EU is blacklisting data collection bandits; their "revenue models" are unacceptable and therefore forbidden by law.

Bandits implies stealing which is disingenuous as you have the option to not accept their terms of using the website.

I'm curious, how do you propose to fund the web? Should every site now have paywalls?

> trade [...] for a free service

You cannot do that not because of the EU but because of basic logic.