Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity.

Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols.

For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but instead religious zeal.

▲

vanviegen 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I've never seen anyone here, or elsewhere, displaying a positive opinion on GDPR without readily acknowledging it, or the way it has turned out and is (not) being policed, has many shortcomings.

I have seen people that are fanatical on privacy. Cheers to them!

▲

wizzwizz4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Most criticism of GDPR on HN is a criticism of bad-faith attempts to pretend to comply, many of which are expressly forbidden by the GDPR. It's a well-written, plain English regulation, and I encourage everyone to read it before criticising it. (At the very least, point to the bits of the regulation you disagree with: it should only take around 5 minutes to look up.)

▲

dijit 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

Hear hear.

My company had consultants come in to help with GDPR, I left after months of them being hired: more confused than I went in.

So I went to the source, and I found it surprisingly easy to read and quite clear.

I think theres a lot of bad faith discussion about the GDPR being complex by people who have a financial interest in people disliking it (or, parroting what someone else said).

Heres the full text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read.

	▲	vanviegen a minute ago \| parent [-]
		> 87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read. That's some serious speed reading! :-)