Because 'dont abuse your ownership of personal data' is pretty much what it boils down to.
It tries to restrict data. Information wants to be free. It has no owner.
Private information in fact does have an owner: the user that it reflects on.
If you meant personal information then that doesn't make sense either. No one owns the fact that George Washington was male. It is just a statement that could be true or false. George Washington has no control over me spreading this information. Especially since he is dead.
It's not about ownership. It's about my right to keep private information private. It's a right granted by law: the GDPR.
> Information wants to be free
That slogan originates in a sentence that contrasts "information wants to be expensive" (because it's so valuable) with "information wants to be free" (because it's so cheap to distribute). It's not like saying "televisions want to be free, so I think I'll steal one".
I suspect that many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living; I suspect they're just jealous.
And if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves (though likely not capable of that) and shunned by all members of the industry with any ethical compass.
If EU wanted to ban tracked ads, it should make a law bans tracked ads, that simple. Not only it would instantly achieve the desired effect (which GDPR did NOT), it would level the playing field for more ethical companies to thrive within the EU.
Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to. And companies should not be able to capture that data, sell it and share it without explicit consent. Which GDPR does achieve.
This is an almost undefined concept. Data is not copyright, they are observations. Plus for many kinds of data ownership is hard to define, e.g. genetic data which is largely shared by all of us.
