[kodablah]

There is a bit deja vu, since at that time we were pointing out similar flaws in the DPD (lack of enforcement, lack of clarity, govt inefficiencies, the inability for proponents to separate intent from reality, etc).

Sadly, there is an absolute "for or against" mentality out there. You can't make it clear that the implementation of such a law would be poor enough to not justify it being enacted in the first place lest you are told "well, should we do nothing?". We can easily start with easy-to-understand/implement transparency requirements (maybe even just as guidelines or requirements for a form of certification at first while encouraging technical solutions in the meantime). Never-realized scary fines might as well have never been brought forth.

[volak]

I think the app should be called "Captain Hindsight"

[JumpCrisscross]

There was a popular pushback against American tech in Europe at the time. Criticism of GDPR was conflated with criticism of that pushback.

[blub]

Do nothing is an untenable position. Software companies have become so brazen and scummy that even a law which is unevenly enforced is absolutely necessary.

The GDPR brought privacy to the front and into the attention of software companies. It gives us individuals at least a chance to control our data.

[Mirioron]

I think the reason why these situations boil down to "for-or-against" is because people craft narratives about these measures/changes to law. If the narratives are pushed hard enough then they end up overpowering nuanced discussion.

"If you don't agree with GDPR then you must want to steal my data". It's difficult to make nuanced arguments against it when you get shouted down by statements like that. These narratives are used to label someone and it seems to be common in modern politics.