Can't read this, GDPR walled...
1) Weren't doing a very good job with your political reporting, and didn't know about it.
2) You are storing way too much information about your users for a newspaper to store.
3) You use deprivation of news to a particular group of people to try to influence them, or others to aid in your goals, whatever they might be.
4) You don't have that much money, and can't afford the changes necessary.
In my opinion, of these, only 4 is really acceptable for a newspaper, as news at its core is about trust, integrity and dialogue. Each of which none of the other answers leaves untainted.
... but I believe I don't even need to make the argument, because time and the growing distrust of how companies handle their sometimes very private and sensitive information don't care about arguments, it will simply make the things it cares about happen, given time, and the opportunity to be heard.
Evidently the GDPR, all things considered, is preventing this person from reading the LA Times, in the same way that California's temporary ban on foie gras prevented Californians from enjoying foie gras.
Regulations on the duties of business affect the rights of individuals.
Calling it a cancer suggest you've not actually had to comply with it, you're just parroting all the people who are blowing it out of proportion because they don't understand the law or just don't think privacy is as important as ad revenue.
The fix for what? Being able to access content from the LA Times?
"The EU is basically saying "if you do business here, and you screw this up, we are going to sue you before seeking other remedies""
That has never, EVER been said. Not once. In fact, the vast majority of guidance says that they will seek compliance BEFORE suing people. If you can't get the basics right, no one here can trust you to have an honest conversation.
> - likely infringement – a warning may be issued;
> - infringement: the possibilities include a reprimand, a temporary or definitive ban on processing and a fine of up to €20 million or 4% of the business’s total annual worldwide turnover.
> It is worth noting that in the case of an infringement, the DPA may impose a monetary fine instead of, or in addition to, the reprimand and/or ban on processing.
> The authority must ensure that fines imposed in each individual case are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
In the official disclosure about enforcement, they state that warnings are optional ("may"), and only apply to "likely infringement", and they have more or less no standards determining what is "effective", "proportionate", or "dissuasive", and to me "proportionate" and "dissuasive" or "effective" are somewhat conflicting constraints. In some cases surely an effective fine is not proportionate, or a dissuasive fine is not effective or proportionate, or an effective fine is not dissuasive (that is, does not dissuade future infringement). I don't know what you consulted to get your information, but I would suspect europa.eu[0] is a decent source.
Heck, you even contradict yourself, first you say:
> That has never, EVER been said. Not once.
But in the next breath, you say:
> In fact, the vast majority of guidance says that they will seek compliance BEFORE suing people.
If you "get the basics right", surely you realize that it can't be simultaneously the case that it has never, "EVER" been said that a suit will be filed before compliance is sought, but also that the complement of the "vast majority", the petty minority, say that they will sue people "BEFORE" seeking compliance, by your own statement.
[0]: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...