> Many US news organizations chose to geo-block the EU rather than going to the trouble of figuring out compliance.

Funny init.

Rather than do the ethical thing and treat their own (American) users personal data with respect, they instead geoblock an entire continent.

Yes but it means serve them specifically. If the main audience is US and some EU visitors happen by, it's not violation. Or at least it's not enforceable violation.

> The GDPR states that websites that serve EU citizens are subject to it,

The GDPR can state that they're the masters of the universe but that doesn't make it true. They lack jurisdiction, they can't sue in US court. The EU suing an US entity, in US court, for breaking EU law sounds like a great comedy I really want to see.

If the EU doesn't want EU citizens to use some service located in another country, they should stop their citizens from going there, like at the border, like blocking the IP, domain, etc.

The GDPR can state whatever it wants but what are the consequences? If the taliban pass a law about what is required to serve websites in Afghanistan, for instance, what obligation am I under to even notice?

If I am Reuters and AP and have offices in EU of course I am interested in complying with local law, but it doesn’t make sense to me for a local newspaper to care whether they are in compliance with foreign statutes.