It seems like there’s things from both sides of the camp on first glance, can you point out the bias you see? (Legitimate question, and I only quickly glanced.)
I'm judging by "Compliance costs are astronomical" when the supporting evidence is largely estimates from before it went into effect.
So you can't take everything too seriously, but still, it's good to collect more links. Also, the author is being clear about the weakness of some of the supporting evidence.
At least from what I read, it is the slant of the entire piece than anything in particular. If we removed environmental protections we would also see a boom of growth in the industry, but we decided that those benefits don't outweigh the environmental cost, same here with GDPR, after Cambridge analytica using digital micro targeting to heavily manipulate populations and elections it is simply too high a cost to pay for what is otherwise a pretty shifty industry otherwise
I'd heavily recommend everyone here to read the book surveillance capitalism it is an incredible explanation of what goes behind the curtain
In short, GDPR has some relatively minor problems and externalities and blogger wants to scrap the entire GDPR because of them....
If you start out with an opinion and look for evidence to support it, yeah, that is biased. But it doesn't mean it's not a useful contribution to the conversation. Certainly it's better than not looking for evidence!
