I see your point in everything you say, but GMOs are not dangerous at all and makes crops use less water, makes them more nutritious, more resistant to pests (which means you don’t need pesticides as much) and can even be used to let rice be richer in vitamin D, which is essential for some places in Asia.
Go after all the other things, no problem. But stop eating the GMO propaganda. Eat the GMO products instead.
This is part of the law to stop money laundering.
Denmark had issues in the past that pulled money out of Denmark with either cash or money transfers, and therefore banks have to document where big transfers come from.
So this is basically an unfortunate example on how this also hits innocent companies.
But Denmark had to stop it all together, because we are talking about billions being pulled from Denmark this way.
This is a proposal right? Not something that’s actually in place.
This happens every few years, and they also happen close to elections.
I’m not saying that this isn’t dangerous, but these people send these proposals because they use it for their election campaign. They look like they want change, and they then blame too many votes on “not themselves” that it didn’t pass.
I’m no so scared that this goes through, anyway.
It’s bad because the subscription fee is ridiculous high compared, and only for one reason.
And that’s getting you to consent, because comprehensive data is worth more for them.
Also, the whole point is to give back users the right to their data. They don’t take away Facebooks right to show ads.
Selling personal data is not equal showing ads.
He should do both. The message getting to as many people as possible is more important that he posting on Twitter.