It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because their parents spent to much money on entertainment.

First: If child labor laws were abolished tomorrow, almost no parent in a developed country would encourage their children work, and almost no employer would accept child labor. Parents want their children to succeed in life, and in developed countries that means sending them to school until they have enough knowledge to work a lucrative job. So a parent must be desperate for money or have a very low opinion of formal schooling if they're willing to let their child leave school at age 14 and find employment. Such instances are exceedingly rare in developed countries with social safety nets, but they're not as uncommon in poorer countries. In those places, a parent must sometimes choose between their child going hungry or their child going to work. It's a terrible choice, but we should let families make that decision. The state doesn't have as much information as the parents do, and parents care about their children far more than the state does. A blanket policy prevents families from choosing what they think is best.

Second: As we've seen with laws banning drugs and prostitution, the net effect is to drive the practice underground. This means that anyone involved can't rely on the police and courts. It encourages violence and discourages victims from reporting worse crimes for fear of being prosecuted themselves. It means that banned products aren't subject to controls on quality or safety (as they would be if they were regulated like everything else). So too with child labor. In poor countries, child labor laws mean that children work illegally. They have no protection from hazardous working conditions or abusive practices. The fact that their labor is illegal also means they can't join a union.

Third: In the US, there are exemptions to child labor laws. The Amish are allowed to leave school and work full-time at 14. They work on farms. They use power tools[1]. Some even work in woodshops and sawmills (though usually less hazardous jobs such as cashier or stacking wood). As young as 10 years old, they drive horse-drawn buggies on public roads. Compared to other children in the US, Amish kids don't seem to be particularly unhappy or have worse life outcomes overall.

I think people should have more rights sooner in life. That includes the right to vote, the right to leave school, and yes the right to exchange labor for money. There are plenty of successful people who left school early. Heck, the former Prime Minister of Australia quit school at 14.[2] Scroll through Wikipedia's list of autodidacts[3] and you'll find quite a few high school dropouts.

One can criticize a practice while still arguing against blunt laws that outright ban it. I'm certainly not a fan of child labor, but I think that many of the laws around it are counterproductive, especially in developing countries. I also think many drugs are dangerous, but imprisoning people who engage in such practices causes more harm than allowing it. And I'm worried about how governments and large companies are collecting information, but I'm also convinced that GDPR doesn't help. If anything, it makes the problem worse because larger companies can more easily afford to comply. And there's the issue with GDPR's exceptions for government agencies such as law enforcement and intelligence. Funny how that works.

1. The Amish use compressed air or hydraulic tools. Some sects allow electricity if it's from self-sufficent sources. For more info, see https://www.tested.com/tech/453794-how-amish-are-adopting-po...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23353051

The options that appeared are (a) Accept (b) Manage Trackers

Manage trackers leads to this page

https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/privacy-policy#/cookie

Which seems to list lots of 3rd parties that will track me if I view the site. I'm told I have to go to their sites and opt out.

So what? If you don't want to give me those things (ad tracking isn't nearly that bad, btw), then don't enter my store. And likewise, if a consenting adult doesn't mind giving out that info in exchange for entering my store, why prevent them from doing so?

Don't agree to my terms, don't enter my shop. It's as simple as that.

And this is why I have such a problem with the rule. Without some dramatic changes, any video streaming site almost surely wouldn't be able to handle the substantially lower ad revenue and still make a profit if everyone actually opted out. Sites like Facebook would probably turn a profit, but there's a large portion of the internet that would not survive when faced with 90% less revenue (untargeted ads payout drastically less).

>“Freely given” consent essentially means you have not cornered the data subject into agreeing to you using their data. For one thing, that means you cannot require consent to data processing as a condition of using the service. They need to be able to say no. According to Recital 42, “Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.” [1]

[1] https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/

EDIT: Come on can we not down vote just because you disagree here? It's just going to be come a circle jerk like most of Reddit if you guys keep this up... I linked a source even proving this OP wrong... from the official GDPR resource...