Comment on Adobe Gets Bullied Off Bluesky
infeeeee@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I can’t see any screenshots
how lazy is this “journalism” where they don’t copy the images
Images of web content usually break accessibility (implicit ableism) unless alt text is provided, which really amounts to a poor substitute for embedding content, block quoting, or linking to source (what the web was made for), where no alt text is needed because the actual text is there.
Stop breaking accessibility: oppose inaccessible screenshots of accessible content.
No
Please stop with the “ablism” thing to shut down anything good but not good enough.
If I can’t see the info on bluesky without an account then yes, a screenshot should be required. Bluesky content can be deleted, but a screenshot stays.
Yes, I know that some people need screen readers and yes, we can improve upon this by, I dunno, making an image format for screenshots that allow for alt text or whatever.
What is not helpful is calling people tomstip using a normal day to day tool just because it isn’t perfectly adjusted for < 1% of the Internet users.
To be really clear about it, I’m not saying I don’t care about them, I’m saying you shouldn’t throw around insults just because someone didn’t do a standard task perfect enough for everyone, or mostly: you
No
Please stop with the “ablism” thing to shut down anything good but not good enough.
What is not helpful is calling people tomstip using a normal day to day tool just because it isn’t perfectly adjusted for < 1% of the Internet users.
Emphatic no to your no. Disabling content isn’t good or helpful. Disabled content is worse for everyone: no source, less functionality, less to corroborate, often harder to read. It’s only “good enough” for people like you while pointlessly excluding those unlike you, ie, ableism.
we can improve upon this by, I dunno, making an image format for screenshots that allow for alt text or whatever.
A new technology isn’t needed: not breaking what isn’t broken is enough. Better alternatives have existed since the beginning of the web: linking, embedding, or even copying & pasting the text into a blockquote. A screenshot of web content is a shitty tool serving the able-bodied.
If I can’t see the info on bluesky without an account then yes, a screenshot should be required.
That’s a strong argument for pressuring bluesky to cut their crap instead of enabling their structural ableism by taking screenshots. The alternatives mentioned before still exist.
Bluesky content can be deleted
There’s this crazy feature where if you select the text instead of a rectangle of screen, you can copy & paste it. Always been there. About the same number of steps. Wild.
I’m not saying I don’t care about them
Whether you “care” doesn’t matter when the effect is the same as not caring and the simplest actions anyone could take aren’t taken. The effect of that blithe, inconsiderate disregard is structural ableism. Rather than take the easy way out & reinforce this, we each have to power to address it.
Unlike the abstract issues often discussed here far removed from our control, these are practical actions within our immediate control. We all have power with the simplest of gestures to make our content accessible instead of selfishly able-centric.
Choosing not to when we know better indicates who we are. Defending acts to harmfully disable content also indicates who we are.
Emphatic no to your no. Disabling content isn’t good or helpful. Disabled content is worse for everyone: no source, less functionality, less to corroborate, often harder to read.
this is disabled content. we are barred from reading it, unless we register. parent commenter asked one thing: also include a screenshot for cases like this
this is an empathetic no to reading your comment any further
Bleets?
Skeets
The Sheeples bleat on BlueSky?
Lol, the article says skeet, but I like yours better.
That’s weird. The bluesky links in the article work fine for me, and I don’t have a bluesky account.
Ahh hang on, this one doesn’t work but all the rest do
bsky.app/profile/…/3lmdz2tu6xk2x
Ahh here we go: it’s a user made setting not a bluesky one
“Sign-in Required This user has requested that their content only be shown to signed-in users. This label was applied by the author.”
Ahh here we go: it’s a user made setting not a bluesky one"
Sign-in Required This user has requested that their content only be shown to signed-in users. This label was applied by the author."
Why would a user choose to enable that? Would that make it less likely to be scraped by a not?
bsky started with nine of its posts. wing shown publicly so when they flopped the switch (i think they also opened registration without invites) some people who had gotten used to their post being hidden from the rest of the net felt exposed and the devs added this settings.
while i do not think its a great setting i kinda get it. especially given that there are not (yet) private accounts so that’s the best they have
Probably the same person who ends all of their comments on Lemmy with that stupid “anti-AI commercial license” or whatever bullshit.
It’s like the polar opposite of “Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.”
TBH it’s better journalism to include the link, but they could do both.
Source can be destroyed. An alternative screenshoot backup/proof is good measure. Especially in web its better to not depend on an outside server.
Like if they close (or some billionaire buy them and requires an account for everything), your content becomes worthless.
Sources can be recovered in archives & web caches. Screenshots can be fake.
I don’t say “remove the source”, I say “the source can disappear, the way back machine have already been attacked, just do your own copy of the source and make it available”.
I know screenshots can be faked, but if your news source does it it is not reliable. Drop it immediately.
glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Best reply to a greeting by Adobe