> They need to do the unthinkable: Block all access from the EU.
This seems like a deeply cowardly move. The courageous and virtuous move is to simply ignore the law and continue as usual - to challenge the state to do what, if we all unite in support of each other and our basic freedoms, it will be unable to do.
There's a difference between taking action to make society irregular (ie, violation regulations) and merely breaking the law. Sometimes the latter is the right thing to do.
I completely agree if they can reasonably risk it. However for those that feel similarly about the expanse, overreach, and unjustness of the GDPR, are they similarly courageous in ignoring the law? If their motives are the exact same as here (i.e. about internet freedom from egregious oversight, not bottom line)? I'd say so in the interest of consistency, many would say not just because they like one imposition on the internet and not the other.
My comment is about consistency of acceptable response, not about my personal GDPR beliefs. The GDPR has been debated ad nauseam on this board that I don't think a subthread about it here has value.
The problem is that corporations are fundamentally organs of the state. This inevitable authoritarian spiral was entirely predictable at the start of "Web 2.0", as it is a bad technology designed around centralizing third party intermediaries. Unfortunately, the lure of scalable riches caused most to look the other way.
One thing I don't understand is how you prove your from the EU. I route most of my internet traffic through various VPNs. I'm in the U.S., but am increasingly more often hit with EU specific guidence. Prove I'm from the EU (or US) - you can't.
This seems like a deeply cowardly move. The courageous and virtuous move is to simply ignore the law and continue as usual - to challenge the state to do what, if we all unite in support of each other and our basic freedoms, it will be unable to do.