Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zyst | Hacker News Reader

I think at some point the EU market might become something similar to China, where you don't offer your services at first, and once your service already becomes successful in the rest of the world you consider porting it over, if a clone hasn't popped up and grabbed market share in the meantime.

Which might not necessarily be a huge negative for the users inside the EU, aside from people being unable to access things they want to access because of where they live. Which I'm hugely opposed to, in several ways.

Either way, I'm conflicted about all the stuff going on in the EU. I haven't made up my mind as to which side I fall on, but I do hope they tread carefully.

View on HN

This is how the EU market has worked, in many ways, for years. There have always been moats due especially to localization and payment gateway issues. See: the legendary Samwer Bros clone companies.

Certainly GDPR only increases the width of these moats, but the market dynamic isn't much new.

As a EU citizen, I sure hope so.

edit: my message seems to be confusing. I was answering the last sentence of the parent comment, saying that I hope as well that EU doesn't screw up.

I'm sincerely interested in the motivation that leads to hoping your government controls what you may read.

Is it protectionism? Shielding people from radicalization?

> but I do hope they tread carefully.

That's what I was referring to. I definitely don't want the government — any government — to control what I may read, or even to know it.

Ah, I see now - sorry for the misunderstanding. I was so surprised by the post that I didn't stop to consider alternative meanings.

I'm not sure if it would we a screw up. I mean, I actually liked early 2000-s, when Internet was kind of place of reigning anarchy as if there was no government and evil corporations, but let's just face it: it's long gone. Maybe there will be something else to offer the same kind of experience in the future, but it will never be the Web again, it's dead, taken by the enemy. Parents are home again. So, speaking about the least evil, you know, I would be actually glad, if Facebook (as it is now) would never enter the EU — and maybe somewhere across the ocean whole nations would be enslaved by it, I wouldn't care, because I don't have to use it, since my friends, local businesses and events don't force me to.

In fact, it seems that it's finally the case when people around might have to be "protected", since they cannot make the right choice themselves, and push me to it, as a consequence. So, being quite a libertarian myself, given the imperfect situation I find myself in, I'm not sure I mind some government interference.

I actually hate all these pop-up banners warning me about the cookie usage, and I'm not sure if GDPR (being vague and undefinitive it is) will turn out to be a good thing, and I sure hate this copyright filters thing. But I kind of like EU trying to force Internet-businesses to behave.

Oh, it seems I was unclear again ;)

I will pay attention to the decision the EU takes, as a citizen. And I hope that I agree with them — “screwing up” essentially meant doing something I disagree with.

Just like you, I don't know if GDPR will be a good thing; but at least it seems to be written with the citizens' well-being in mind, and that’s a big change.

> I would be actually glad, if Facebook (as it is now) would never enter the EU

So would I.

I've read of a riot that happened in 17th century France because bakers went on strike or holidays causing bread scarcity.

The government responded putting laws to make sure bread's always available to prevent a revolution.

I wonder what EU citizens would do if new sites blocked EU by default. It's a pity that France (a key instigator of this saga) wouldn't be affected much unlike English speaking countries.

I think the riot you are thinking of took place more than sixty years ago :)

What kind of site would block EU by default?

If EU is a big part of the site's audience, they probably wouldn't close it, and if it's not, well, there wouldn't be enough people complaining.

If a site decides to do this, it's most likely one I don't want to read. I would still be upset.

Many sites in the US have now blocked the EU because of GDPR. For example: https://www.latimes.com

Edit: corrected URL

I know, I was thinking about sites like this one. I don't think I'm missing a lot, the internet is huge.

We need good news reporting in the US right now (I’m an expat) and losing easy access (I have a VPN to bypass) to sites like LA Times (#4 in the US by circulation) may not seem like a big deal, but I believe is a harbinger things to come.

It’s also just one example (search for “shutdown because of GDPR” and there are many more tales) and doesn’t account for future companies that now have to factor GDPR into their business plan and may not (likely won’t?) bring their services to Europe.

Again, I don't think we need services from companies not willing to respect GDPR. Its intent is quite clear IMO.

If you don't like how a service handles your data, don't use it. No need to legislate your wishes across the board for the rest of us.

True, and false. Because when a service gets used by a lot of people, it often becomes hard to avoid.

Take Facebook, for example: at least for my generation, when you don't have an account, you can sometimes feel like you are a burden for others, who organize everything within it (I don't have one and am doing fine, though).

Or take GMail: the only ways to avoid your private email being automatically processed by Google is either to avoid every person using GMail (well...), or to teach those person to use end-to-end encryption. Not that easy.

Just noting, I can not access the link you posted and I am in the US. I have no problems retrieving https://www.latimes.com

Cheers...fixed!

Blocking EU IP addresses is somewhere between just not being ready and throwing a hissy fit. It doesn't block EU residents who are visiting other countries, and it doesn't block people in the EU who use a VPN. So all the responsibilities under the GDPR are still there!

At best, if an executive of the company ends up personally arrested in the EU, it allows them to make a legal argument to an EU court that they're not intending to do business with the EU. But if that's what GDPR enforcement really ends up becoming, I somehow don't see an EU court being sympathetic to that ploy!

And if the longer term plan is really to simply charge EU users in lieu of surveilling them, then there's even a payment stream to go after if they aren't responsive!

Blocking EU ip addresses is an extremely strong indication of intending to do no business with EU citizens. I expect capricious use of the law, but I doubt they could stretch it to apply in those cases.

People in other threads have stated authoritatively that web sites are not responsible for adhering to the GDPR rules in cases of EU citizens outside of the EU, if they do not cater to the EU in general.

Many sites that probably had next to no EU traffic have blocked the EU.

In practice I don't know anyone who has come across those blocks other than in response to [some site has blocked the EU] headlines.

Me. Exactly the LA Times.

I've probably clicked links to the LA Times half a dozen times since they started blocking the EU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com