[TeMPOraL]

Self-blocking instead of making one's business model compliant with the law is a choice. An alternative would be to update the business model.

That's all there is to it. GDPR isn't banning news sites, or other companies; it's banning a very particular set of antisocial business practices.

[rdlecler1]

You’re muddying the waters. Just because someone doesn’t want to take on the compliance burden does not mean they have an antisocial business practice. What you’re saying does not logically follow.

[TeMPOraL]

It does, you just made an illogical connection. I didn't say that companies who self-block must necessarily have antisocial business practices. I only said that GDPR is banning those practices. I also said that companies have a choice between removing themselves from European market or adjusting their business model to be compliant.

[JumpCrisscross]

> companies have a choice between removing themselves from European market or adjusting their business model to be compliant

The problem isn't only adjusting business models. It's proving you've adjusted your business model to twenty-eight EU regulators. If one of them misbehaves, you now have to wage a legal fight in a foreign jurisdiction. Against those costs and risks is a minimum required revenue. If that revenue doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense to serve that market. Regardless of your business model.

[PurpleBoxDragon]

So if a law gives you a choice in how you choose to censor a work of literature, would it be the artist's self censoring and not an act of government censorship? Assuming we applied the same logic.