GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal _of your personal data_ from the internet _upon your request_, which is very different from a US state trying to remove a website hosted in and run by a company incorporated in another country.

And geo blocking may be functionally impossible but the law cares about intent and actions, not if you prevented someone who used a VPN or lied about their location from using your service.

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent | next [-]

> .. which is very different from ...

And yet still an attempt at extraterritorial overreach. Regardless, I imagine that the rest of us who don't do business in the EU will continue to disregard its very existence. (Except in principle when we write negative comments about it on the internet that don't in practice matter whatsoever, such as this one that you're reading right now.)

▲

applfanboysbgon a day ago | parent [-]

How is it extraterritorial overreach when you acknowledge in the same comment that you can ignore it because you aren't in the EU? Unlike the site that is the subject of the thread, which has actually been subjected to extraterritorial overreach. This criticism and false equivalency is ridiculous.

	▲	fc417fc802 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wrote "an attempt at" did I not? Attempted murder and murder have the same intent behind them despite the fact that the former failed. Attempting to claim that as a false equivalency is what's ridiculous.

▲

bmelton a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> which is very different

If you say so