[pc86]

Jurisdiction is sometimes complex, but you don't have to be an attorney to see the disconnect in a court in say, Germany, claiming it has jurisdiction over the practices of a food blog run by someone in Kansas because someone in Berlin decided to sign up for their newsletter.

I want to be clear I think they have a moral and ethical obligation to delete that person's information if so requested. There's just no (legitimate) legal requirement. The huge jurisdictional overreach by GDPR is part of why you're seeing companies just outright ignore parts of it.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not GDPR actually covers anything in the spectrum of "human rights" but for the love of god slavery has nothing to do with anything about it.

[BlueTemplar]

Western powers did go around and forced various African polities to stop doing slavery under the threat of their cannons...

[blip54321]

Reasonable people cannot disagree about the framing of GDPR as a human rights law. The second sentence is "This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data."

Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which privacy is a fundamental, human right, or where the bounds are, but that is literally the phrasing of the law.

Reasonable people can argue about a lot of issues, and views on rights change with time. Ancient Greeks and not-so-ancient Afghans had sex with kids. Just over a century ago, women couldn't vote. It's hard to predict how views on human rights will evolve. Right now, there are huge cultural disconnect about a lot of things digital. It's not clear where they'll land.