[friedman23]

> Because they want revenue from EU citizens?

First of all not all websites make money.

Secondly, monetizing the EU is a step that usually occurs very late into the life of a startup. Startups almost always monetize the US first.

So if you are a company that owns a website that doesn't make money from the EU and the EU comes up with regulations that adds thousands of dollars in costs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential liability to your business, the obvious and easiest solution is to simply shut them off.

We have seen this occur for GDPR and I am confident it will occur for this legislation as well.

[HeadsUpHigh]

>Secondly, monetizing the EU is a step that usually occurs very late into the life of a startup. Startups almost always monetize the US first.

It's not a matter of what the founder/CEO of a startup chooses here. I will often open links from e.g. New York Times or other US news sites because something happened in New York or there's an interesting opinion piece that I want to read. These sites are profiting from my clicks so they have to obey the EU laws. If it was impossible for them to determine that I'm an EU citizen then it's a different story but an geo ban is trivial.

[repolfx]

Or - they could just make money off you, and ignore what the EU wants!

Ultimately the EU's only recourse in things like this is to either convince the USA to act as its enforcer, or to set up a Great Firewall to stop you browsing to the NYT.

[zaarn]

Or the EU could declare that business with NYT means you can't do business in the EU. Which would probably hurt a bit if ad networks jump off (I doubt Google wants to deal with this).

There are more than two options there, many more.

[friedman23]

> It's not a matter of what the founder/CEO of a startup chooses here. I will often open links from e.g. New York Times or other US news sites because something happened in New York or there's an interesting opinion piece that I want to read. These sites are profiting from my clicks so they have to obey the EU laws

Ok, I don't think you understand how ads work. Your clicks don't make a website money if they are not selling ads in your country. The New York Times is not a startup so your point is irrelevant.

edit: if you are not aware that different countries have different ads markets your probably shouldn't have an opinion on GDPR.

[kruczek]

> First of all not all websites make money.

If they don't make money, then why would they need to collect and share data about their users? If they don't collect and share, then they don't need to make any privacy notifications, so it doesn't impact UX.

[friedman23]

> If they don't make money, then why would they need to collect and share data about their users?

If you've ever developed a website you should absolutely know why you might need to collect and share data. Google analytics is considered sharing btw.

[kruczek]

Perhaps I wasn't explicit, but by data I mean personal data, which is what GDPR is all about. While the desire to collect general statistics about site usage is obvious, I still do not see any reason to collect personal data.