Bleh.. I was genuinely interested, but:
> This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
> This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
You don't even want to know how much my org spent on compliance. And we're not tracking people. We sell a service that you have to log into. Plumbing through right to forget and data export through a thousand microservices is a metric ton of engineering work. We had competing regulatory and compliance obligations, and our data models assumed immutability and no hard deletes. Yikes.
I agree with the intent of GDPR. But there are costs. And because of those costs, you can see certain companies choosing to exit the market or delaying a fix until they can budget it or shore up the necessary engineering talent.
Like it or not, but a news org is probably riddled with analytics throughout their stack. And I bet the smaller ones don't have staffing on hand to drop their burning fires and rewrite everything.
Edit: Glad I'm being downvoted for stating the 100% objective truth. I'm not even talking about tracking ethics - which is something I side with the GDPR on. I'm explaining the why, not siding with this site. Jfc, HN. Would you downvote your doctor for telling you bad news?
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]
I assume it depends on the political implications of his news.
If that's the case I think you probably had bad data policies to begin with.
“Well this thing I have never personally done wouldn’t be difficult if you didn’t suck”