More senseless regulations mean more work and more risk. Also, the enforcement mechanisms are different. So, in terms of corruption, more people get a say in whether you can go ahead.
So the solution to corruption is to not have rules at all? And what “senseless regulations” do you mean? If you want to deal with people’s data, you have to respect the people, that’s all. You can avoid the whole thing by not collecting people’s data.
I still don’t get your point, if Lemmy servers have a higher barrier to entry than just doing GDPR, why would GDPR be a barrier to entry for them?
More senseless regulations mean more work and more risk. Also, the enforcement mechanisms are different. So, in terms of corruption, more people get a say in whether you can go ahead.
So the solution to corruption is to not have rules at all? And what “senseless regulations” do you mean? If you want to deal with people’s data, you have to respect the people, that’s all. You can avoid the whole thing by not collecting people’s data.
Is it really unthinkable to have rules that are applied equally to all?
Not true. Besides, some things just don’t work otherwise, like lemmy.
It is true though. And rules are in fact applied equally.
You probably also think that this lemmy instance is compliant. Well, that’s why your firm has a professional lawyer.