Symfony Profiler

{
    "@context": [
        "https:\/\/join-lemmy.org\/context.json",
        "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams"
    ],
    "actor": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/c\/privacy",
    "to": [
        "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams#Public"
    ],
    "object": {
        "id": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/activities\/update\/4bddaab2-8e5f-4b00-9ae3-b67e33351af9",
        "actor": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/u\/Ferk",
        "to": [
            "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams#Public"
        ],
        "object": {
            "type": "Note",
            "id": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/comment\/21275853",
            "attributedTo": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/u\/Ferk",
            "to": [
                "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams#Public"
            ],
            "cc": [
                "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/c\/privacy",
                "https:\/\/lemmy.zip\/u\/RichardDegenne"
            ],
            "content": "<p>We are not talking about \u201creject optional cookies\u201d or \u201callow essential\u201d, we are talking about \u201creject all\u201d. If the website offers a \u201creject all\u201d button (which many do), it actually does reject even the essential cookies. In my experience, the times I\u2019ve chosen to press such button it always result on the banner showing again if you refresh the page.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, I\u2019d actually be equally annoyed if pressing \u201creject all\u201d just means that they will continue saving cookies that their executives consider \u201cessential\u201d (an extremelly vague term).<\/p>\n<p>And \u201cCould be seen as\u201d is vague too. After seeing all those antipatterns I\u2019ve learned to assume the worst. Unless it was explicitly mandated, I think they can easily argue that skipping a banner is non-essential, and in fact since the whole point of the law was to get them to request consent then asking for consent more is actually safer than asking less (specially for edge cases like shared devices).<\/p>\n<p>Also, I still would rather have the possibility of no banners, not even the first time I open the page. The configuration from the browser following the standard could set a default for all websites and avoid the popup to begin with. Then the responsibility would be with the browser, not the website.<\/p>\n",
            "inReplyTo": "https:\/\/lemmy.zip\/comment\/21686338",
            "mediaType": "text\/html",
            "source": {
                "content": "We are not talking about \"reject optional cookies\" or \"allow essential\", we are talking about \"reject all\". If the website offers a \"reject all\" button (which many do), it actually does reject even the essential cookies. In my experience, the times I've chosen to press such button it always result on the banner showing again if you refresh the page.\n\nIn fact, I'd actually be equally annoyed if pressing \"reject all\" just means that they will continue saving cookies that their executives consider \"essential\" (an extremelly vague term).\n\nAnd \"Could be seen as\" is vague too. After seeing all those antipatterns I've learned to assume the worst. Unless it was explicitly mandated, I think they can easily argue that skipping a banner is non-essential, and in fact since the whole point of the law was to get them to request consent then asking for consent more is actually safer than asking less (specially for edge cases like shared devices).\n\nAlso, I still would rather have the possibility of no banners, not even the first time I open the page. The configuration from the browser following the standard could set a default for all websites and avoid the popup to begin with. Then the responsibility would be with the browser, not the website.",
                "mediaType": "text\/markdown"
            },
            "published": "2025-09-25T07:33:51.908025Z",
            "updated": "2025-09-25T08:08:11.521013Z",
            "tag": [
                {
                    "href": "https:\/\/lemmy.zip\/u\/RichardDegenne",
                    "name": "@RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip",
                    "type": "Mention"
                }
            ],
            "distinguished": false,
            "audience": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/c\/privacy",
            "attachment": []
        },
        "cc": [
            "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/c\/privacy",
            "https:\/\/lemmy.zip\/u\/RichardDegenne"
        ],
        "tag": [
            {
                "href": "https:\/\/lemmy.zip\/u\/RichardDegenne",
                "name": "@RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip",
                "type": "Mention"
            }
        ],
        "type": "Update",
        "audience": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/c\/privacy"
    },
    "cc": [
        "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/c\/privacy\/followers"
    ],
    "type": "Announce",
    "id": "https:\/\/lemmy.ml\/activities\/announce\/update\/078e1e3b-7b55-4ec5-aee4-fa43f547f7c3"
}

{"@context":["https://join-lemmy.org/context.json","https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams"],"actor":"https://lemmy.ml/c/privacy","to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],"object":{"id":"https://lemmy.ml/activities/update/4bddaab2-8e5f-4b00-9ae3-b67e33351af9","actor":"https://lemmy.ml/u/Ferk","to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],"object":{"type":"Note","id":"https://lemmy.ml/comment/21275853","attributedTo":"https://lemmy.ml/u/Ferk","to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],"cc":["https://lemmy.ml/c/privacy","https://lemmy.zip/u/RichardDegenne"],"content":"<p>We are not talking about “reject optional cookies” or “allow essential”, we are talking about “reject all”. If the website offers a “reject all” button (which many do), it actually does reject even the essential cookies. In my experience, the times I’ve chosen to press such button it always result on the banner showing again if you refresh the page.</p>\n<p>In fact, I’d actually be equally annoyed if pressing “reject all” just means that they will continue saving cookies that their executives consider “essential” (an extremelly vague term).</p>\n<p>And “Could be seen as” is vague too. After seeing all those antipatterns I’ve learned to assume the worst. Unless it was explicitly mandated, I think they can easily argue that skipping a banner is non-essential, and in fact since the whole point of the law was to get them to request consent then asking for consent more is actually safer than asking less (specially for edge cases like shared devices).</p>\n<p>Also, I still would rather have the possibility of no banners, not even the first time I open the page. The configuration from the browser following the standard could set a default for all websites and avoid the popup to begin with. Then the responsibility would be with the browser, not the website.</p>\n","inReplyTo":"https://lemmy.zip/comment/21686338","mediaType":"text/html","source":{"content":"We are not talking about \"reject optional cookies\" or \"allow essential\", we are talking about \"reject all\". If the website offers a \"reject all\" button (which many do), it actually does reject even the essential cookies. In my experience, the times I've chosen to press such button it always result on the banner showing again if you refresh the page.\n\nIn fact, I'd actually be equally annoyed if pressing \"reject all\" just means that they will continue saving cookies that their executives consider \"essential\" (an extremelly vague term).\n\nAnd \"Could be seen as\" is vague too. After seeing all those antipatterns I've learned to assume the worst. Unless it was explicitly mandated, I think they can easily argue that skipping a banner is non-essential, and in fact since the whole point of the law was to get them to request consent then asking for consent more is actually safer than asking less (specially for edge cases like shared devices).\n\nAlso, I still would rather have the possibility of no banners, not even the first time I open the page. The configuration from the browser following the standard could set a default for all websites and avoid the popup to begin with. Then the responsibility would be with the browser, not the website.","mediaType":"text/markdown"},"published":"2025-09-25T07:33:51.908025Z","updated":"2025-09-25T08:08:11.521013Z","tag":[{"href":"https://lemmy.zip/u/RichardDegenne","name":"@RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip","type":"Mention"}],"distinguished":false,"audience":"https://lemmy.ml/c/privacy","attachment":[]},"cc":["https://lemmy.ml/c/privacy","https://lemmy.zip/u/RichardDegenne"],"tag":[{"href":"https://lemmy.zip/u/RichardDegenne","name":"@RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip","type":"Mention"}],"type":"Update","audience":"https://lemmy.ml/c/privacy"},"cc":["https://lemmy.ml/c/privacy/followers"],"type":"Announce","id":"https://lemmy.ml/activities/announce/update/078e1e3b-7b55-4ec5-aee4-fa43f547f7c3"}