The author of the submission? Or the person claiming it's ugly?
"Human activity is a complex thing and no law can describe it with 100% accuracy, news at 11".
I doubt anyone arguing against GDPR read it. Or read recitals. Or read even high-level descriptions of the law, say, at gdpr.eu. Or read any laws in general, to compare.
We can all see the results of it. It made the web experience worse for everyone and it’s so complicated it solidified the power of the few companies that either can comply with it or afford to ignore it and deal with the slap on the wrist.
Thought experiment: why didn’t any major ad tech company announce any harmful affects of the 99 section GDPR. But they did announce billions in revenues shortfall (ie Meta) when Apple made tracking opt in by one three line dialog box?
> We can all see the results of it. It made the web experience worse for everyone
This bullshit again. It wasn't the GDPT that made the web worse. This is is entirely on the companies who took a look at GDPR and said: no, we're going to ignore it, continue siphoning user data, and trick users into "consent" through dark patterns (actually illegal under GDPR).
> Thought experiment: why didn’t any major ad tech company announce any harmful affects of the 99 section GDPR. But they did announce billions in revenues shortfall (ie Meta) when Apple made tracking opt in by one three line dialog box?
Funny how you don't conduct a thought experiment on why cookie pop-ups exist and what GDPR has to say about this.
It’s amazing that the excuse for the web being worse is always “the web being worse is not caused by the law being bad. It’s caused by it being badly enforced”.
The fact is that the cookie pop ups would never be necessary if the GDPR hadn’t been passed.
As laws go, it's fine.