@hckiang I think it's less complicated than many make it sound.
Basically it just requires you to tell people what info you collect, get consent when that info is not essential and write all of this down in a clear manner so that people know how you operate.
For example, @mastohost managed to do it.
The law is also proportional to severity & size, so even if you fuck up, the damages are probably minimal, if not negligible.
Today I got the first GDPR-inspired mail begging me to resubcribe to a newsletter I'm pretty sure I never subscribed to.
We're hosting a seminar on e-Sports, Exergaming, and Fantasy Leagues in November. CfP dl is June 15th. Do come visit!
@bgcarlisle There doesn't seem to be an easy answer available.
It's probably best to just keep the academic community lively, so that any fringe voices stay fringe without active censorship.
The anti-vaxxer scenario seems unlikely, but it doesn't hurt to have some solutions before the problem appears.
What's the scholar.social take on pseudoscience and nonsense? I've now seen multiple instances of either bullshit or pseudoscience being posted here.
 I mean 'bullshit' in the philosophical sense (Frankfurt 1986).
It's pretty baffling that PowerPoint is the format scientific journals share their images in.
I'm in a training in preparation to GDPR and what I learnt so far is that lawyers should not be allowed to explain the law.