It's becoming rather farcical that I may have to use Tor to browse from ... a European IP.
† This perception is obviously a huge problem for papers like the L.A. Times (and for writers, in general). For better or worse, this is how people see it, now. If you don't like the source, then you just imagine substituting in another one, like you're buying pork futures (or whatever the opposite of original reporting is).
Edit: I'm not saying that's a good thing, guys. I agree with dionidium.
I suspect we're more than 25% of HN's audience.
(Realistically, a mirror is the realistic alternative. Two have been posted and downvoted into oblivion. So it seems the HN community along with the LA Times support censorship. Nice.).
If two draconian policies don't add up to a level playing field, why not go for the hat trick!
It's an LA Times article written by an LA Times reporter published in the LA Times for the benefit of LA Times readers.
What European alternative do you suggest?
I'm not suggesting a European alternative, I'm saying that this does not belong on hackernews.
Asto it being original reporting, that's a little hard for people to factor in when it's entirely blocked.
Because there's no way any company can actually comply with the GPDR; many of the rules conflict with each other. GDPR is a regulatory trap intended to allow the authorities to initiate selective enforcement against non-EU companies.
Source, please? My reading of the GDPR is as a broad set of sensible rules requiring that you acquire consent for gathering and using people's data (and that consent can be revoked -- or withheld for non-core functionality). The law isn't machine code, it's a document interpreted by humans against the spirit of the law: act in good faith and respect people's privacy and you'll be fine.
When I see a company that doesn't even want to consider doing business with a European because GDPR, I see a company that I want as far away from my personal data as possible.