The law is for everyone, it doesn't matter if I profit from it or how big I am, I still have to reveal who I am if I take data that is often needed, like emails in a forum.
Of course you won’t be impacted, but your protection is via selective enforcement. You won’t be in compliance with the law, but the government will lack the resources or determination to punish you. Until that changes.
This is fundamentally dangerous. Once we are all lawbreakers all the time, it creates a powerful tool for oppression and using the law to harass and silence political opponents.
It’s not that slippery slopes don’t exist, but when the only argument against something is the supposed harm that it may lead to via a slippery slope, it’s suspicious and unconvincing. This thread is full of people saying that this is a step on the road to tyranny, and may end there, that’s true, but the arguments don’t seem to really support the claims.
If this really matters to you, and you care about doing more than signaling to others of your ideological persuasion, you need to offer more and better. Slippery slope is too often the lazy fallacy, and not a real case against something. How does this law as written and likely enforced do all of the bad things claimed here?
This is not a slippery slope argument. Situation where the only thing protecting you from unreasonable law is selective enforcement is already bad, no further sliding down the slope needed.
It is enforced no matter where in the world you are, as long as your site is accessible to EU citizens. And you will be surprised by how much jurisdiction European courts can have. A monetary judgement can be collected from any American company via UFMJRA, for example (http://www.uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Foreign%20M...).