> I'm on the fence with GDPR until I see how it is enforced.

Can't we just look at how the previous incarnation was enforced to get an idea? Also, I think we can say it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Unenforced, the law is worthless and punished only those who abided. Equitably enforced hurts a lot of smaller players. Inequitably enforced has everyone praying they are on the good side of the enforcers. Viewing through the enforcement lens can make it clearer the value, or lack of value, of the legislation akin to the value of previous versions.

To the topic of the article, the enforcement lens needs to be used as well. Even if people agreed with the potentially impending copyright laws, legislators need to take enforcement concerns seriously. This is why baby steps are ideal.

>Equitably enforced hurts a lot of smaller players.

So? The goal of the law is user data privacy and control. It doesn't matter if the abuser is Google or someone operating a site from their dorm, violation and misuse of user data is still the same.

Sure. I mean we could use arguments like that to justify egregious or heavily-enforced punishments on all sorts of crime. The real goal should be to bring everyone, users and companies, along towards the goal. This looks much different in practice than it does in theory. One of those practices is balancing good with bad and working towards things. While equitable enforcement is the ideal of the enforcement options, it would require the law be written to know its practical limitations which is not the case.

What you'll find is that accomplishing a goal is about implementation not intention. In many cases, inadequate attempts actually work against the goal.

> So? The goal of the law is user data privacy and control. It doesn't matter if the abuser is Google or someone operating a site from their dorm, violation and misuse of user data is still the same.

The issue is that competition is a powerful consumer protection mechanism. A regulation that prohibits 15% of current hostile practices but also impairs competition can allow the major incumbents to be 500% more hostile to customers because the customers now have no alternatives.

It allows the incumbents to do all the bad things the law doesn't prohibit but they couldn't do if their customers had a choice.

Not sure why this is downvoted. That is the goal of the law, I don't see how one can disagree with that. It favors user priorities and control very strongly, and I'd add it does that because companies like Google have been playing it fast and loose with user privacy for decades and have all but annihilated the trust of the general public with regard to it.

Selective enforcement gives them even more power though. If a rule/law is only acceptable because it won't be enforced much then it's actually a much worse law for freedom than one that will be enforced across the board.