[messe]

> GDPR is criminalizing all websites because compliance is impossible

I disagree, compliance isn't particularly difficult unless you're going out of your way to do something harmful to your users.

> be prepared to come back to planet reality.

Please refrain from hyperboly, I'd much rather a civil discussion about this.

[will4274]

> compliance isn't particularly difficult unless you're going out of your way to do something harmful to your users.

Please stop spreading this FUD. There are tons of architectures (e.g. Apache Kafka) which were totally sane and require total reorganization to become compliant. Dismissing this as "not very difficult" and adding a snide little attack on anybody who disagrees is untrue and an ad hominem to boot.

Complying with GDPR is costly and significant work. If implememtations match legislative aspirations, it could also be a significant boon to consumers. However, legitimate questions about the level of compliance, particularly from companies with unscrupulous business models leave it currently vague whether the boon will be realized in full, in part, or not at all.

Though I know hacker news discourages political discourse and meta, I would interject - almost all political topics have upsides and downsides. Pretending that the downsides don't exist on any policy isn't passionate advocacy - it's just degrading the level of discourse.

[bipson]

I think you have the definition of FUD backwards

[tzs]

> I disagree, compliance isn't particularly difficult unless you're going out of your way to do something harmful to your users

Article 27 is a big pain for those of us not established in the Union, regardless of whether or not we are doing anything harmful to our users.