Fox 21 is a local affiliate of Fox based in Duluth, MN. It’s a regional news source for Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
I seriously doubt they get enough traffic from GDPR regulated countries to retrofit their entire site to be compliant when it is targeted for a very specific audience in the US.
they don’t need to retrofit their entire website. GDPR does not require the website to do anything, it requires websites to not do certain greedy things. that’s all. that’s the nice thing, they could just remove all the tracking code and they are compliant.
Except they do, because even if they’re pretty certain their site is compliant with GDPR they’d still have to review the code to make certain it is or risk legal liability if anything isn’t.
Many small to medium organizations that aren’t operating outside of the USA chose to just block connections instead.
Is there a lot of people outside the US checking an “affiliate for the Duluth-Superior broadcast area, which covers northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” regularly for their news?
Yes, but also, it is sad you can automatically safely assume a news site that we only want to display our news will be handling a fuck-ton of our personal information. If it just showed the news and non-targeted ads, it wouldn’t need a retrofit. GDPR wouldn’t apply.
GDPR is a law with real legal consequences that protects EU citizens (EU as in European Union).
Do European citizens frequently turn to an “affiliate for the Duluth-Superior broadcast area, which covers northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” for their news?
Do you spouse it’s easier for a local or regional organization to set policy to block warn GDPR covered connections or have someone spend time ensuring the site is GDPR compliant for the 1s? 10s? 100s? of hits they get?
Fox 21 is a local affiliate of Fox based in Duluth, MN. It’s a regional news source for Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
I seriously doubt they get enough traffic from GDPR regulated countries to retrofit their entire site to be compliant when it is targeted for a very specific audience in the US.
they don’t need to retrofit their entire website. GDPR does not require the website to do anything, it requires websites to not do certain greedy things. that’s all. that’s the nice thing, they could just remove all the tracking code and they are compliant.
Except they do, because even if they’re pretty certain their site is compliant with GDPR they’d still have to review the code to make certain it is or risk legal liability if anything isn’t.
Many small to medium organizations that aren’t operating outside of the USA chose to just block connections instead.
Is there a lot of people outside the US checking an “affiliate for the Duluth-Superior broadcast area, which covers northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” regularly for their news?
Yes, but also, it is sad you can automatically safely assume a news site that we only want to display our news will be handling a fuck-ton of our personal information. If it just showed the news and non-targeted ads, it wouldn’t need a retrofit. GDPR wouldn’t apply.
GDPR is a law with real legal consequences that protects EU citizens (EU as in European Union).
Do European citizens frequently turn to an “affiliate for the Duluth-Superior broadcast area, which covers northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” for their news?
Do you spouse it’s easier for a local or regional organization to set policy to block warn GDPR covered connections or have someone spend time ensuring the site is GDPR compliant for the 1s? 10s? 100s? of hits they get?