[DanBC]

> I imagine motivated in part by the fact that if you have to acquire non-implied consent, so you might as well force that friction point to fully onboard a user, and part as well by fears as to how targeted advertising will continue to provide a revenue source given the new requirements.

Again, please can you point to the actual part of GDPR that forces people to gain consent before targetting ads?

Here's the UK regulator, the Information Commissioner, saying that legitimate interests (one of the lawful reasons for processing data) might be ok for marketing.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

> As a meta comment, I notice you are _very often_ present defending GDPR in threads where I've stayed quiet in the past; to the point that as someone who almost never notices names on this site, I've noticed yours before this interaction. Can I be curious about why you advocate this so comprehensively

It's because almost all of the people posting against the GDPR will post things that just aren't in GDPR. They haven't read any of the regulation; they believe things that are not true and they spread those incorrect statements. Some of this is unintentional - they've read a bad blog and they beleive it. Some of it is intentional - fuck the EU.

I don't mind people being against GDPR if they've read it and are against things it's actually doing.

[anoncow]

I have read the GDPR. The point is not what this law directly impacts today. The point is what laws like the GDPR open up the industry to.

[DanBC]

Sure, if we elect Hitler next year we're all fucked.

I'm not sure how that's an argument against GDPR today, especially since it's built on long standing EU traditions and law.