Like it or not your country (be that U.S. or pretty much any other) is very likely a partner to EU through one or more treaties. At least by U.S. constitution, content of treaties pretty much equals constitutional-level law (Article VI, paragraph 2).
That means that if there's a provision in any U.S. - EU treaty, saying that you have to abide by EU regulations, when serving EU customers, you simply have to do it. Otherwise your own country may enforce those regulations on you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...

The problem with your argument is not that your don't want to abide by the EU regulations. It is that you want to expand your business to the EU and at the same time not abide by its regulations.
You are in similar position as an ice-cream van. If you do business from it in Texas, then US laws apply. If you drive into Mexico then make sure that you abide by Mexican laws when selling the goods. If you'r profits from Mexican customers will be good enough, I bet you'll do your best to make sure everything is in order for you to have your business thrive there.
Even inter-state in US you'd have to be careful about what you can and cannot do.

That, of course, is not true.

Countries (including US) have always been specific about how websites can or cannot offer their services or content to their citizens. One of examples are gambling sites. Lots of times those sites are illegal if they don't comply with local regulation (read: pay local taxes) and there will be attempts to either block them or fine them. This is absolutely no different. If your business model is to attract customers from certain countries then you should be prepared to abide by the laws of those countries. It is your choice not to do business with their citizens if you decide that the bother and costs outstrip your profit. It's a great thing that nobody is twisting your arm that you HAVE to sell your products or services to someone who is from a country you don't want to sell to.

The thing is that there's huge amount of FUD going on about GDPR.

Like it was stated earlier in the thread, most of the sites won't need to do anything special in regards with GDPR. You don't need to hire an extra person to be your compliance officer, you can appoint yourself as one (if you need to have one in the first place).
Fines also will not be leveraged to their full extent unless you are a) a repeated offender, b) break same rules over and over again, after repeated warnings, c) your "offences" aren't egregious in terms of scope and amount of users that you violate, d) show intent, e) all of the above combined.

For most of the GDPR rules, they are simply rules that I think anyone would want sites that they visit to have enforced:
- Treat my data responsibly
- Do not sell my data to third parties, unless you inform me and I give you consent
- If someone steals my data from your site, let me know ASAP
- Let me know what data about me you collect
- Allow me to verify what about me you have
- Allow me to erase my data*

*erasure of data does not necessarily imply that you have to erase sales logs, related to your trading with me, as compliant with local tax regulations, for instance.

If you don't want to do that, then I think it's fairly safe to say that you either don't really respect me as a customer or your intents are malicious in the first place.

In certain contexts, sure.

In my language it's happening right now, that the use of the words "could've" and "had to" (doesn't quite translate) is effectively reversed from their original meanings. Pretty much everyone is using it in opposite way of the correct usage. Funny thing is, that if you use it correctly no one notices. So in effect both words pretty much mean the same thing now.

I'm not sure where you're picking up that part of the argument. The parent is simply saying that if the laws are there for something to be controlled, then the government is pretty much required to be the one making sure that they are enforced. Otherwise the law is simply so many words, without any meaning.
Who would be driving at the speed limit, if there were no police to punish you if you exceed it?

Nobody is saying that government is the one solely responsible. You as the parent have full responsibility to explain to your kid what is and is not OK. But kids will be kids and will try to get around some restrictions (who doesn't want to see boobs?). All that is being said here is that whoever is offering something, that is supposed to be regulated should put some effort into not making it available to persons that must not have access to it.
Or are you also saying that the store clerk should simply sell a liter of vodka to a 12 year old kid, because she's satisfied when he says he's over age?

Parent is also saying that solution to this problem (online age checking) is most likely not practical or desirable. But feel free to overlook that part of his argument.

I'm not sure that's the point. And I'm not saying at all that this proposed scheme is practical or that I agree with it in any particular way. But I think it's not completely unreasonable to say, that whoever is offering a controlled substance, should bear some burden of making sure that they are not allowing that substance to get into the wrong hands, without some due diligence of checking.

I, as a parent will do my job. But whoever sells their wares also should do theirs.

You mean in the same way like government is now ensuring that underage kids cannot buy alcohol, tobacco and printed porn?

The thing is, that the law is already in place: consumption of pornographic materials is against the law for underage kids. It is being enforced and controlled in "legacy" environments. Why should such rules not exist in online form? The law should apply everywhere equally.

That being said, I do foresee lots of practical problems with such enforcement. But that is another discussion, I suppose.

Are you?

If you got a hold of a pornographic magazine and hid it under your bed, when you were a kid, who was responsible? The person who sold it to you or your parents? Magazine was at their house, after all.

Is it not responsibility of a porn site, to make sure that they only serve customers who are not illegally consuming their service? After all, access to this content is possible from anywhere, not just from "your home".

Speaking from firsthand experience, I know for a fact that police routinely lie in their reports.

When I was younger I was couple of times part of the police "procedure". Long story short, they would essentially harass kids who were out, having a something to drink (not illegally). After they finished their thing and filed their reports I was, among others, called to a local court, dealing in misdemeanors where I had to defend against doing things that never happened.

I don't care if the police simply made a mistake, or (in my opinion more likely) straight-out lied. The fact was, that I did absolutely nothing wrong and someone in position of power put me in a position where I was blamed for the things that they made up.

Thankfully there was no physical abuse happening, but I would be really glad if there was an independent, incorruptible witness to the whole event.

Exactly. This is something that the game is quite explicit about. To be honest, I was still a bit wary of doing it, but it is my fault for not trusting the instructions.

By that logic there should be just one model out there and that's that. At the end of the day, Nexus phones are supposed to be devices mainly targeted at developers as testbed, reference devices. So why would you need more than a few GB of storage capacity anyway?

On the other hand, I was simply pointing out to the OP that the option which he was suggesting, doesn't exist and he should consider alternatives.

You're right, but the case that you're describing is slightly different.

In your scenario you got rid of the things that you acquired, not the things you created. It's much more of a struggle, when you have to get rid of some of your text messages, photos and/or videos that you took and so forth.
And phones (at least in my opinion) are most of the time used to store the data that we create, rather than the data that we acquire. One exception being the apps, of course. Music and video content, that I consume on my phone is mostly streamed. There is some downloaded content but, like you said, that's not a problem when you have to get rid of it.

Now, I do agree that backups are crucial. And if you've backed stuff up, you should kind of let go and not need the local capacity anymore. But have you ever seen people showing you photos of their kids on their phone? Those are often a few years old. And no, it's also usually not a selection :-)

Why wouldn't it?
People like having large capacities for storage. I know a lot of people who start fidgeting very nervously, when they' re forced to delete anything from their devices.

For me, 64GB hits the sweetspot. Although with 4K recording capabilities that would also be on the low end, if I were more into recording video, than I am.

Only problem is, that there is no 64GB model. At lest not for the 5X. There are 16 and 32GB models and then there are 64 and 128GB Nexus 6P models.

So you either get a small phone with small storage capacity or a large phone with large storage capacity. No small phone with large storage capacity is available here.