[ericb]

> sell my data

I think you're justifying a really extreme reaction based on the worst behavior of a few companies. GDPR doesn't just go after data-resellers. It targets how a well-intended company can use and keep your data even with no third party involved.

Laws that mess up the good-guys lives are bad laws. GDPR is from the same folks who thought a law that lead to pestering users about cookies was a good idea.

[Marysville]

It's not stopping any well intended company from fairly using data. A law making it harder for well intentioned gun enthusiasts from getting guns is a good law according to me. All well intentioned gun enthusiasts should support it. Otherwise there'd be a day people would get tired of the bad intentioned gun owners and legislate a complete ban on guns.

Also I like the cookie idea. If only people really cared about misuse of their data they'd like it too. We've seen how good 3rd party cookies have been for some democracies.

[Proziam]

Maybe it's just me, but the 2nd Amendment talk in this case really seems like a hamfisted way to spout political opinion that's in no way relevant.

>All well intentioned gun enthusiasts should support it.

Really black/white argument there which the issue is not. And nor is this topic. There should be more nuance in GDPR, but there isn't which creates a lot of discomfort.

>It's not stopping any well intended company from fairly using data.

It actually is, but whether or not that is an overall good thing is yet to be seen. Certainly, they did some level of testing before proceeding.