• vmachiel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is fine imo. If you don’t want to comply, don’t. You just don’t get to extract EU data

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but it shows how they behave toward people who aren’t in the EU.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No it’s not fine. Sometimes important reporting is only available on sites that pull crap like this. That’s basically cutting people off from important information just because they live in a geographical region that doesn’t allow secret malware.

      Thank FSM for archive.ph and the like coming to the rescue, but not limiting people based on geography used to be a central part of the ethos of the internet and most sites wouldn’t routinely serve you unwanted tracking cookies and adware.

      Edit: what’s with all the downvotes? I wouldn’t expect a community like this to be so full of geoblocking fans

      • alterforlett @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Poor strawman mate. You don’t have to be “a geoblocking fan,” you can despise it, while also not enabling privacy invasive firms.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          A more careful reading would reveal that I’m NOT in favor of enabling the privacy invasion. I’m against blocking regions rather than comply with a common sense law. I really thought using the words “secret malware” about their deceptive practices would have made that obvious…

          • alterforlett @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never said you were in favour of it, another assumption you’re making. You asked why the downvotes and the answer is your strawman argument(s), and being against geoblocking and pro privacy isn’t mutually exclusive.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not the one making assumptions here. You’re the one implying that you downvoted my original comment because you thought it was anti-privacy, which it wasn’t.

              I know that being against geoblocking and pro privacy at the same time is possible since that’s MY OWN position. I guess that wasn’t clear enough im the original comment, but it should be ABUNDANTLY clear to anyone by now since this is the second or third time I state it explicitly.

      • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        cutting people off from important information just because they live in a geographical region that doesn’t allow secret malware.

        I think most disagree with your argument, that you need to tolerate ‘secret malware’ to access important information. That information can’t be THAT important or else it could be found elsewhere, completely without malware.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing for the sites to comply with the EU law by making the content available WITHOUT the malware rather than by blocking access.

      • realitista@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You always have the option of a VPN. That and private mode is probably a good best practice for a site like this anyway.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a good point for most of the sites pulling shenanigans like this, but in the case of the news sites I was referring to, none of the negative stuff they do would be allowed under the EU rule

      • zit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately you aren’t automatically entitled to this information that I imagine mostly comes from private for-profit companies.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, because wanting important information to be freely accessible to the world is SUCH an entitled perspective, unlike pretending that secretly spying on your users and feeding them unwanted ads is justified 🙄

          • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I want free food and housing too, but unless I’m going out and creating it myself, I have to pay the companies that provide them to me.

            Im not completely arguing with you, I get annoyed by not being able to read stories from my local paper, but they are paying people to go get that information and turn it into a article. If that was all free, they’d go out of business pretty fast and then there would be no news, just Internet rumors.