A shitposter leaves and people are losing their minds over it. Fascinating.

Speaking on behalf of all the people annoyed with her posting style, I don't see a problem with that. I don't see many people that hate her personally, I do see plenty of people that are annoyed by the posting style and want it to stop.

If she comes back and doesn't do the same shit posting with terrible spelling and grammar, I think most people will probably forget pretty quickly.

This is in spite of the concerted effort to recast this as a lynch mob trying to chase her out of the fora.

As for the posts, I don't think she's doing that. I think they probably have some sort of a script that does that. Or at least I hope they do because with GPDR requirements, this won't be the last time somebody demands it.

Although, I'm not sure if it's strictly speaking necessary unless there's information related to the law. Deleting it all is probably just easier than sifting through the posts to see what is and isn't required to be removed.
Yes and strictly speaking, if I were to have grabbed all those posts and posted them in the US, the GDPR doesn't apply to companies that are not located in the EU or have a presence. They could try to sue me over here in America, but it's not legal here and the regulation is likely to violate our 1st amendment. And as a result, they would have a massively hard time trying to enforce it.

Not that I did that mind you, even if I wanted to, I would have had to have done that before the posts were deleted.

Watched a tear-jerker last night that has a happy ending. Very inspirational, so I thought I'd share it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQmYUg2Pp8

This isn't true I'm afraid. GDPR applies to any company that collects data on an EU citizen, regardless of the location of the servers or the company (https://revisionlegal.com/data-breach/eu-data-protection-gdpr-law/). You're probably suggesting it's not enforceable through a US court, but if so (and that's not been tested) that just means you're safe in the US, you're still going to be in violation of the law, and have a case outsanding against you. Travel to the EU and they can act, or try to start a business with any EU involvement. They could even try to extradite you, but they probably wouldn't bother. It's a very wide ranging law, and its enforceability in the US may well be proved more effective than you realise.

Shocker here, I don't give a fuck what "content" you enjoy on the internet. I'll call it how I see it.

Enforceability is what leads this to be somewhat moot as it's uncommon for courts without jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there's no point.

This is overreach. They can't do that without a treaty authorizing it. In order to try war crimes in the Netherlands there had to be a treaty agreeing to allow that. Shamefully the US hasn't ratified the treaty, which is why nobody from the US is likely to be tried unless arrested in a country that's a party to the treaty. This is despite most or all of those countries having their own laws that ban such crimes against humanity.

The US does prosecute our own citizens for bribing and corrupting foreign officials, but those are our citizens, not foreign ones.

The EU likes to think that they can do things like that, but it would be chaos if we started to allow one nation or region to write laws that were applicable to people with no ties to the region.

That being said, I wouldn't put it past the EU to abuse the process to apply it to people for whom the law is not legally binding and I wouldn't personally recommend ignoring it for folks who are planning on having dealings with the EU in the future, but they lack any legal basis for forcing non-EU businesses and individuals to comply with the regulation.

Or, in other words, they have the same legal standing that the Thai government has to insist that individuals outside of Thailand disrespect their king. That law, like the GDPR is not legally binding outside the government that past it.

EDIT: And BTW, the GDPR violates our 1st amendment, so no, they can't enforce it in the US. It has similar legal standing to those stupid super-injunctions that courts in the UK are so fond of.

Apologies, I understand and agree that our conversation strayed a little bit too far into more general politics. It was not intentionally politicising this thread.

That's the crux of it, IMO, because you've published it in the public domain. You probably should be able to make claims re *specific* data, but in toto?

There's no such thing as "the public domain", you've published it via GOG.com's servers & hosting. It's then their responsiblity to manage that data. With regards to being able to request specific data removal vs in toto, you can definitely request total removal of your information, it's one of the least ambiguous parts of the legislation. If anything it's more complicated as to whether you can cherry pick which pieces of information are removed, as this could allow you to skew the presentation of you to a misleading image. imagine if you could choose which GOG posts of yours hung around just before going to a job in public office, you could remove all the bad bits and paint yourself any way you like with the context of the remainder.

There are ties though. As wpegg has stated, GDPR does protect EU citizens so even if it's a US (or whatever) company, it has to comply because it is doing business in the EU.

As for the enforceability...I would certainly love to see a case about this, or better two, one company with a commercial interest and one without.

It's not the public domain. Forums usually have TOS like this one:

"By registering an account at X and participating (including but not limited to submitting posts or private messages on X), you hereby grant X and our licensees, distributors, agents, representatives and other authorized users, a perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, fully-paid, royalty-free, sub-licensable and transferable (in whole or part) worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights you own or control to use, reproduce, transmit, display, exhibit, distribute, index, comment on, modify, create derivative works based upon, perform and otherwise exploit the messages posted or private messages sent on X, in whole or in part, in all media formats and channels now known or hereafter devised, for any and all purposes including entertainment, news, advertising, promotional, marketing, publicity, trade or commercial purposes, all without further notice to you, with or without attribution, and without the requirement of any permission from or payment to you or to any other person or entity."

Of course, but "non-exclusive", I would think, means that data is no longer private.

How can something be "freely submitted", and at the same time, "collected"?