The EU did its job correctly by forcing sites to ask for consent. How that rule is implemented is up to the sites, and they often choose to do it in the most annoying possible way. And then tell you to blame the EU for it.
Also as a website owner, you only need to ask for consent when you use more than “strictly necessary” cookies (https://gdpr.eu/cookies/), i.e. cookies that are needed for your site to function normally.
I see Lemmy is already at the “X is bad, updoots on the left” stage
lmao that game was so bad they removed it from Playstation’s online store, but yeah I guess “it wasn’t that bad”
Edit: here’s “not that bad” according to CDPR: https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/gautoz/status/1407006269047771151#m
Sure it’s somewhat different, it’s just the after picture of torture and not active torture
Ok so it’s different, got it. For a second I was concerned that ya’ll were really getting distressed when exposed to a picture of a meal, in the same way a video of an actively tortured animal would distress most people.
So you know they’re different, and yet pretend they’re the same to give yourself a moral high ground. Kinda hypocritical. Or do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Right. And do you have the same emotional response when seeing a picture of a steak and when seeing a video of a kitten being tortured and then burned alive?
Don’t play dumb, people are downvoting you because you pretend that seeing a picture of a steak evokes the same feelings as seeing a video of a kitten being tortured to death.
Yes there’s no difference between a picture of a steak and fries on a plate, and a kitten being tortured then burned alive. Absolutely the same thing.
It is opt-in though? The site can’t track you until you agree with its cookies policy