[tannhaeuser]

So I have asked myself: why? But after 10 minutes I didn't come to a conclusion :) so could you share what you're after or give me a hint? Are you suggesting there's an anti-EU/anti-GDPR/anti-whatever campaign of sorts going on that makes people biased, or, more realistically, an intent to discredit GDPR by US advertisers who fight against similar legislation in the US? That may very well be the case, but I haven't noticed on HN specifically where the pro-GDPR camp seems to be (slightly) in the majority if I'm not mistaken. Or maybe you're criticizing snake oil businesses selling GDPR compliance solutions which aren't (as discussed elsewhere in the thread), betting on people being too lazy to read the GDPR when the GDPR law text is quite understandable as you rightly point out? Genuinely don't understand the general direction of your suggestion.

[rsynnott]

> Are you suggesting there's an anti-EU/anti-GDPR/anti-whatever campaign of sorts going on that makes people biased, or, more realistically, an intent to discredit GDPR by US advertisers who fight against similar legislation in the US?

I mean, in one sense, _obviously_. Most of the fearmongering around the GDPR comes from the ad industry (and to some extent from other impacted industries like the shadier parts of the debt collection industry, but they're much smaller and less noisy). I doubt there's an origanised conspiracy to discredit it as such, but most of the anti-GDPR talking points do ultimately come from the ad industry.

And this isn't that surprising, arguably. For most companies, the GDPR essentially means, at most, "your business model is fine, but your process is flawed; fix it". For large parts of the ad industry, it means "your business model is flawed; change it". Note that a lot of the ad industry complaints are around consent; either that it has to be asked for in the first place or that it's too hard to give accidentally. Well, yes, that's the point.