Doesn't seem so clear cut to me yet, but I see what you're hinting at. The first one seems about Google Fonts specifically, together with IPs indeed, but not mentioning US govt subpoenas at all (at least in the English translation of the abstract). Personally, I long believed Google Fonts are a risk from privacy standpoint and not really necessary, just easy - this seems to basically be reflected in the abstract and makes me quite happy. Interestingly, it seems to mention severity of the privacy abuse potential vs. benefit, which again sounds great to me. Now, the 2nd one mentions GA and subpoenas, so this becomes more tricky and I wonder what will come of it. Though for the time being, GA is exactly a target I hoped would be regulated, so again rather happy for now, though I see how this seems indeed a concern dealing with any US company. And how connecting the two (i.e. IPs as PII + US govt subpoenas) becomes a concern as well. IANAL, obviously, though. But interesting, thanks!

I don't really think being a good 'worldwide' business can exist when longterm there are conflicting views held by governments about what is right. The fact is some governments and societies values are objectively better than others

How does any of those things make it "essentially impossible for any US-owned or US-hosted site to comply with GDPR"? Is it legally required in the US, for example, to use Google Analytics?