Comment

Comment on Adobe Gets Bullied Off Bluesky

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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

source
- lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  As written multiple times, there are better alternatives. Disregarding them is shortsighted ableism. I suggest working on your attention span.
  
  source
  - WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    better alternatives? linking, embeddib? worthless when the website itself decides thatbit won’t show you the content
    
    quoting? you mean, all of the response tweets? and how do you quote images, videos?
    
    source
    lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    worthless when the website itself decides thatbit won’t show you the content
    
    Businesses are legally bound to make their online content accessible: a screenshot without alt text doesn’t solve this for them. Isn’t it common practice around here to link to archives? Quoting & linking isn’t worthless.
    
    quoting? you mean, all of the response tweets?
    
    Yes. Unreasonable? No, compulsory & common standard industry standard. Out of legal necessity (and market reach), they already write text out (as alt text for all meaningful images). An image of a tweet with replies requires writing all that text out.
    
    Try this exercise yourself to realize how pointless an image of text is (which images of tweets mostly are). Take an image of text, write the markup to display the image, include an alt attribute set to the full text shown in the image. If you have any sense, you’ll return to the source of the image to copy & paste the original text into the alt attribute. If you lack sense, you’ll tediously read the image and retype it into the alt attribute. Your choice.
    
    Realize anything yet?
    
    You’re returning to the source, so linking it is basic sense, right?
    
    You already write text out, but your effort is wasted as a flat text attribute for an image that adds nothing compelling, only some meaningless visuals of UI artifacts. That text could instead be the main attraction with semantic mark up (blockquotes, paragraphs, lists, etc). It makes more sense to skip the image entirely & quote the text directly: less work, more functional, better.
    
    and how do you quote images, videos?
    
    The way it’s already done. Online news doesn’t typically give screenshots of images or videos. They link, embed, or copy the image or video to directly provide it alongside some quotes.
    
    Selecting lines of text instead of rectangles of screen to copy & paste isn’t a novel, farfetched idea.
    
    source