As written multiple times, there are better alternatives. Disregarding them is shortsighted ableism. I suggest some attention span.
lmmarsano
joined 1 year ago
In that case, too, the text can be quoted, then just like magic it's accessible. A quote that links to the source is a strong combination.
Everyone benefits: the text is searchable, reflowable, adaptable to multi-modal input & output, easy to quote via copy & paste, etc. It's simply more useful & screenshots don't inherently give any of that.
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 able as you while pointlessly excluding those unlike you, ie, ableism.
16% of the world population experiences some form of disability. Anyone can become disabled temporarily or permanently. With age, nearly all of us become disabled in some capacity. This is as much a matter of self-regard & forethought as it is for regard of others. It is in your interest to have accessible content whether or not you realize it.
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 the 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.
Sources can be recovered in archives & web caches. Screenshots can be fake & often break accessibility.
Always prefer sources.
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.
image of text
no alt text
people with accessibility needs can't read this
why?
TV executives like Roger Ailes setting a standard conservative news anchorwoman aesthetic to draw in their target audience who goes for that classic American blonde. No ethnic minorities need apply. Pant suits discouraged: gotta put those gams behind transparent counters to work for the leg cam.
Why even bother with a hate speech policy? Oh, right, money.
The "platinum rule"
- falls apart when people expect something wrong or unreasonable
- isn't reciprocal
- fails to judge actions based on whether the actions themselves are right or wrong.
While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it's reciprocal.
The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want. One way to treat others is to let them do as they want. People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should. Can we oppose them? People wouldn't want that, so we shouldn't.
The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong). To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don't create unwanted obligations. If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations. Thus, we shouldn't disagree.
In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust. This platinum looks more like pyrite.
In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art. Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.
Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values. "Respecting wishes" isn't a democratic value and neither is being a good person. Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values. Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists. That's why I wrote it doesn't matter & such arguments are "futile & senseless".
It's also why I don't state my position on it: it's a red herring that doesn't defend democratic values, which I'm arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic. Even if I agree with (I could!), it's beside the point.
I think it's worth pointing out that respect doesn't mean fulfilling someone's wishes or treating them however they want. While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong. Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation. Claiming we should always respect people's wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong. We can't satisfy everyone, nor are we here to. This just seems like basic sense.
Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society. Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world "at large". The alternative would be bleak.
To answer your question, it's more about arguing for basic freedoms consistently than about arguing for disrespect.
When approaching these ethical questions, I think it's best to focus on the individual & moral reciprocity: should someone be able to express themselves in a way that offends me? As long as it obeys the harm principle, the answer is yes. Accordingly, anyone should be free to express themselves with imagery in the style of Ghibli (using tools such as AI) even if it offends the studio's founder, since it results in no actual harm.
Since morality should be based on universal principles that don't depend on contingent facts of an agent (such as their characteristics), I find it clarifies questions to approach technology with their non-technological equivalents. Would it be wrong to train a person to learn Ghibli art style so they could produce similar works in that style on demand? The harm of that is unclear, and I would think it's fine.
I don't see a general duty for a free society to fulfill a wish unless it's more of a claim right than a wish. In particular, criticism is a basic part of art: a duty not to criticize artists (who wish not to be criticized) would be unjust. While an artist should get credit (and all due intellectual property rights) for their work, once it's out in the wild it takes on a life of its own: people are free to criticize it, parody it, & make fair use of it. Some wishes don't need to be fulfilled.
If the point is to reproduce an image, not text, then yes, definitely provide those images. Agreed: nothing wrong in that.