Blocking access at geographic level across pretty clear signal they don't care about users/readers in those regions (I think it's hard to argue otherwise, the law has been coming for 2 years).
Obviously they cater to people interested in local news in those regions. However, I hope they will rectify and allow access again for EU users at some point soon. It seems to go against the idea of a borderless internet, and I blame the companies for that, not the EU.
Or, it could mean they hadn't realised how much work it'd take to be GDPR compliant, and decided to temporarily use geographical blocking until they can be compliant.
When you have competing priorities and finite time and budget, people often don't investigate external requirements, assuming that they'll just comply when they no longer have a choice.
That's why the first few audits (SOX, PCI, etc...) for a company new to them, are always such a struggle, people starting to look at the months of work needed the same week the auditors are planned to come in.
edit/PS: Did you notice how many "We changed our policy" emails you've received in the past 2 weeks, including from very large international companies like google, yahoo, etc... Companies for which not being open for business in Europe would have financially impact. Probably a good indication that they ended up with a lot more work to comply that they had anticipated, and still made it just in time. Now imagine the same situation in smaller companies running on very thin resources that cannot afford a sudden increase in staff!
> However, I hope they will rectify and allow access again for EU users at some point soon.
Honestly, I don't. I don't want this precedent of government overreach to stand. I wish more international companies would stop doing business with US citizens for the same reasons.
> It seems to go against the idea of a borderless internet, and I blame the companies for that, not the EU.
You don't blame border-based rules for harming the traditional borderless approach? How illogical.
> Honestly, I don't. I don't want this precedent of government overreach to stand.
Why is it overreach?
It's literally why we invented government! I, the little guy, couldn't find giants like Facebook or Google. That's why I asked my democratically elected government to work on the problem.
To me it's overreach because smaller measures could have been a better first step, this won't help the problem much, and it hurts the non-targets. I understand it's why you asked your government to work on the problem. We just need to stop pretending that any way they work on the problem is a good one.
Smaller measures were taken. The Data Protection Directive was adopted in 1995 and hasn't worked at preventing EU citizens' human rights from being abused.
So using the law didn't work. What is a rational reaction? To try one of many other approaches? Of course not...draft and pass more laws, but bigger this time. If someone has a hammer and everything looks like a nail, all they are going to do when the hammer doesn't work is tweak the hammer. Instead of stepping back and saying that a provision in the law can be fixed here and there (e.g. requiring regulators to do something as if words are enough to usurp apathy), why not question whether the method in the first place is the problem?
No, just because they do something doesn't mean it's good. I don't like it, but then again I don't like the cloud act, some dmca provisions, etc. We can disagree whether the law is good or not, it's just that this topic (not you specifically) causes people to assume being against the legislation means being against its purpose. I think there were many better ways to work on the problem.
Because the EU is targeting companies beyond it's own borders, including companies that have no representation in the EU. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. have the means to affect policy worldwide, making them international. Smaller companies do not.
Ma and Pa's Midwest Quilting Shop is really going to hate it, when they eventually get around to disovering they've got a problem. It sucks for a lot of people who depend on advertising, but imagine how bad it's going to be for niche sellers (quilting supplies, Americana dealers, woodworking tool sellers, etc.) It's an opportunity for someone over here to make a pile of cash, but there's no way it's not going to suck for the little guys.
Nine times out of ten it probably doesn't matter. What happens in France happens in France and that's not really our problem to worry about. This is that tenth time.
I suspect there's more than a few Europeans having a big, fat cup of haterade-flavored schadenfreude with their afternoon tea who wanted exactly this to happen.
Obviously they cater to people interested in local news in those regions. However, I hope they will rectify and allow access again for EU users at some point soon. It seems to go against the idea of a borderless internet, and I blame the companies for that, not the EU.