lmmarsano

This is among one of many techniques presented at the WCAG site you linked. You putting text in a top level comment would seem to me to satisfy this, at least in intent.

Not in the slightest: the guideline falls under Principle 1 – Perceivable

Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

as Guideline 1.1 – Text Alternatives

Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

The sight-impaired user is unable to perceive the text content hidden in the image at the post listing level that the sighted user can perceive. Your suggested text alternative is simply not there to display at the post listing level. Your suggested execution of the technique fails its test

1. Remove, hide, or mask the non-text content
2. Display the long description
3. Check that the long description conveys the same information conveyed by the non-text content.

since we can’t display a description absent from the page. Your nonsolution misapplies the technique & is not a credible text alternative.

Imagine opening every post to seek among an unsorted mass of comments a comment we can’t seriously expect to exist providing a text alternative not written by the author & of questionable integrity: the user has no incentive to take that additional effort for a post that already violates web accessibility. They may not even be aware a post needs a text alternative. That is not equivalent to the experience of a user who can read the image.

The best solution is not to use any web accessibility technique: actual text doesn’t need it. Sharing it as an image was gratuitous & unnecessary. The post could have been proper text with the same bolding & line breaks.

to offer and make accomodations to the best extent possible

which your nonsolution here definitely is not: the post remains inaccessible. That is not due to a limitation of possibility: it’s due to a failure of will or execution. As originally stated, posting proper text or setting alt text is possible.

A separate comment only gives the commenter an unfounded sense of accomplishment, when they’re only enabling the posters to continue violating web accessibility without any pressure to correct themselves. Structurally prolonging dysfunction that way is the opposite of helpful.

Because that’s not a solution: the post remains inaccessible. Unless you edit the post, demanding they fix it is the only solution.

I see stating the obvious struck a nerve for the downvoters, so let me dumb it down for the unfortunate ilk unable to grasp the obvious: y’all full of shit. You think someone scrolling through posts the same as you is going to notice a text alternative hidden away in some comment on some other page? You expect them to open every post unlike you for something that likely won’t even be there? That’s not equivalent in the slightest. Shit’s daft as fuck: keep dreaming.

Now examine critically the substance of the other commenter’s actions. While the comment is effective at drawing upvotes, is it actually effective at the main outcome of doing anything meaningful for accessibility as they purport? No, the comment doesn’t appear to anyone scrolling through posts. Tellingly, the community is simply rewarding self-indulgent ploys to gain upvotes that do nothing for accessibility while condemning meaningful answers to actually solve it. That’s quite damning.

It indicates a toxic community that cares more about indulging community narcissism than acting on their purpose directly within their capacity right here to address an issue in their control. A real progressive would care enough about equal access to look up & determine the truth on the matter, so they can pursue and promote real answers instead of empty gestures that don’t meaningfully address inaccessible content. The placebo they pretend works stops them from developing real cures.

In sum, some lemmy communities in particular are toxic & hostile to web accessibility in ways we don’t find in bluesky and other parts of the fediverse such as mastodon where web accessibility is common practice.

Back to the point, here’s an introduction to web accessibility that you seem to sorely need. You can also read the technical guideline while you’re at it. However, your nonsolution is an unhelpful illusion that diverts people from pursuing credible solutions.

checks alt text

(nothing)

The message is good, but it’s an image of pure text unreadable to anyone who can’t see images.
It’s very un-progressive to exclude others, and the lack of proper text makes it unsearchable.
OP needs to update the post to proper text or redundantly set a text alternative.

Many academics have vocally disagreed with Haidt’s conclusion that social media can be directly linked to declines in teens’ mental health. Haidt’s former colleague Peter Gray, a psychology research professor at Boston College, recently published a book criticizing Haidt’s theory as promoting a moral panic and offered an alternative theory that pins adolescent mental health issues to the rise of a stringent education curriculum under Common Core. Other prominent researchers also have critiqued the theory, and several large studies and meta analyses have found little or no direct effect of social media use on teen mental health at the population level.

Still, Haidt’s theory has gained credence with many parents, teachers, and teens who believe it reflects their experience with social media.

Kind of wild how it’s always radio silence from the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” brigade in comment sections like this, where you have a centrist Dem using their platform to bash a progressive or leftist candidate just a couple days prior to elections

Starting from a counterfactual isn’t a strong argument. El-Sayed won the primary for a reason and gets massive support in similar comment sections from Democrats overwhelmingly agreeing that Stevens can go fuck herself.

How you divine who is & isn’t “the Vote Blue No Matter Who brigade” is the real mystery. Supporting commentary looks the same no matter who writes it, and it’s hardly needed when an upvote will do. Are you a mindreader? Do you consort with a higher power? Please show us your mystical, sagely ways.

It’s especially comical because Vote Blue No Matter Who unsurprisingly means doing that regardless of whom blue is. It doesn’t necessarily imply broadcasting commentary everywhere about it to your satisfaction.

It seems you’re agitating for some poorly articulated conflict in your deluded fantasy when the “Blue No Matter Who” crowd is embracing your candidate.

Charitably, it means the incorrect perceptions cause damage regardless of the truth. Do you dispute that position?

See how much harder it is to dismiss a position when we don’t shortchange it?

I myself don’t care what happens to Proton as a privately held company, and I don’t buy their services. I just don’t like cheap shots. The level of discourse at the fediverse doesn’t need to devolve into another reddit.

You may want to read more about how credit scores work and how to build credit in the US.
Reporting a payment (such as rent or utilities) to a credit bureau doesn’t always require charging it to a credit card or paying fees.

Not sure how any of that works outside the US.

Link lemmy.world/post/53701678/26577239

bruh, do you know how to link?

That just seems like more classic patriarchy.
Calling it psychopatriarchy makes it seem badass and gives it subversive appeal.
I could easily imagine right-wing social media running with it and squawking “pSyChOpAtRiArChY!!” with gusto like dumbass Beavises going “fire! fire! FIRE!”.
Not sure what that’ll do for public discourse.
Calling it before it happens.

The way people talk about empathy on the fediverse while denouncing and haranguing people they claim to lack it tells me they haven’t really internalized it, and they maybe talk it up for social currency.
Empathy can only approach fair & impartial judgement when we apply it equally by extending it to those we don’t relate to—when we seriously try.
I have (and probably everyone has) observed enough people rush to judgement with a great deal of empathy for those they can relate to while making 0 effort for people they don’t understand.
They’re assholes with empathy.

Empathy is trendy to invoke, especially in social media.
The popular premise seems to be that we can solve the moral failings in society if we’d all just develop our psychological health to better contemplate how others feel.
While that may help, it’s incredibly reductive.

Feeling is a very low bar that doesn’t set a standard.
Empathy doesn’t stop someone from being an asshole.
It doesn’t imply proper action or duty.
A subjective feeling prone to error, misjudgment, and uneven results is not a reliable basis of moral judgment & conduct.

Plus, it seems like a reversion to a type of virtue ethics that suggests morality simply amounts to having empathy.
Isn’t it a bit more than that, and aren’t there systems of ethics to better model it?

I remember a time when instead of talking about empathy, people talked way more about acting & treating everyone with basic decency and standards.
They might have even brought up a social contract or the golden rule.
They’d imply society has or ought to have rights, duties, and universal principles to judge moral conduct.
Those quaint ideas at least affirm some objective, external standard unlike empathy, and I think it’s overdue to restore those ideas to prominence in popular discourse.

See?
Like right there: I explain that there’s way more to morality & ethics than empathy (whose flaws are obvious enough to motivate philosophers to base systems of ethics on universal principles instead), and someone too superficial to bear the thought that their sacred cow has legitimate issues goes downvoting instead.
Empathy at the fediverse is performative.
Purporting to care about empathy, however, is very popular.
The survey may just reflect that superficiality when serious ethicists & philosophers wouldn’t consider empathy a great foundation either.

The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society.

It’s literally not.
Repeating reductive shit they say on social media doesn’t make it true.
Your ignorance of the source material is telling.

There’s a Wikipedia article quoting part of it

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

explaining the various takes on it.
It comes from a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies about what I stated.

The type of intolerance the quote refers to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not force, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage.
That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.

Unsurprisingly, you shouldn’t expect philosophers who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society to defend forcible suppression of tolerant disagreements in it.
Colloquial intolerance isn’t the stricter intolerance they refer to.
We can observe intolerance of actual intolerance as posed in that book in action: we do live in a society roughly following the system that book was defending, assault (including that motivated by violent extremism) is a crime, and our society doesn’t tolerate it pretty much as I stated before.

Social media dumbasses butchered the idea into bullshit pop philosophy, and you aren’t winning any arguments by regurgitating shit that’s flat out wrong unless that argument is “How dumb is social media? Very.”

Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.

1. It’s a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
2. They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems.
   Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
3. The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.

Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.

To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.

Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they’re completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.

1. The paradox of intolerance is a paradox, not a conclusion.
2. The reductive conclusion social media dumbasses insinuate by invoking it is entirely wrong according to the philosopher who articulated the paradox.
3. Intolerant carries a more technical meaning in philosophy (at least to that philosopher) than a mere disagreement with other ways: it includes the element of imposing (by unjustified force) on society to literally prohibit other ways. People who do not force us to comply with their position are tolerant.

From the article (you didn’t read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.

Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that “solves the problem” from people we disagree with. It’s pretty much accepting charity and doesn’t imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.

checks alt text

Peter Singer

OP can start with a proper text alternative.
No way someone unable to read an image will get the content, and search engines won’t find it by missing text, either.

Not cheating accessibility & editing a post to correct that is definitely in OP’s power.
Nothing of comparable moral importance is lost by doing so.

Explain what the disabled did to you to deserve shitty conduct from you.
Same for whomever upvotes you.

If you want to be an asshole, keep in mind whom you’re taking it out on, because it’s definitely not your critic.
Moreover, no one is immune to disability, and you could find yourself screwed over by that arrogant inconsideration you embrace.
I’ll gloat over the idiocy regardless, champ.

Anyone who purports to be leftist yet downvotes accessibility is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.
They’re all talk, but when it comes to concrete action here and now, that’s all they are: all talk, no action, hollow words, fake.

Bold to contradict the rash flights of popular judgement.
People hate the burden of questioning their own flawed, unreliable intuition when they can downvote instead to ease the burden right away.

Gotta admire that indifference to downvotes.

notice image full of text\ check alt text\ find

Oh, referring to you?

That is wholly inadequate for an image full of text.
Ain’t no way someone unable to read the image is going to get the whole thing.
Search engines won’t find anything by the “text” either.

Don’t cheat accessibility.
Do the text alternative properly.

A spokesperson for Cornell said in a statement on Tuesday that “the second-hand account of the question asked by President Kotlikoff in a January 2025 meeting in the letter is incorrect, based on a documented first-hand account.”

“The question ‘why did it take so long for the assault to be reported’ was directed at bystanders who did not use Cornell’s anonymous tip line, despite ongoing social media activity about the incident in October 2024,” the spokesperson said. “He was not questioning Jane Doe’s reporting.”

It’s a cheap relinquishment of control to authority under the guise of “public good & safety” of youths whose fundamental rights society is carelessly bargaining away. The goal is less personal responsibility, less autonomy and more control by authority to suppress liberty to access information openly, safely, anonymously.

The article mentions a record of legal decisions I also quoted showing lawmakers had commissioned enough legislative studies to know that more effective & less restrictive legal alternatives exist than these irredeemably flawed laws that obstruct everyone’s participation.

Everyone conveniently seems to forget it’s just information on screens of devices parents voluntarily give their children. Control is entirely within grasp of the individuals if realized and supported. As those justices had argued (before the new ones ruined it), government could facilitate & empower parents to realize their parental discretion & responsibility by legislating programs to educate parents & children & provide them the resources. Such legislation would empower parents without imposing on everyone else or sacrificing freedoms. Despite being told that solution, lawmakers never bothered to pass it in the decades since.

Oddly, the children didn’t seem to matter anymore until shitheads waited long enough for the Supreme Court (with enough right-wing appointments) to change their tune.

Even more incredibly, the Eleventh Circuit literally seems to suggest that states can regulate all sorts of speech that might make people more interested in content as “features” rather than speech. CCIA had pointed out that the law is not at all content neutral because it puts rules on internet speech that doesn’t apply to speech in other mediums, and uses “cliffhangers” in books as an example.

In particular, CCIA emphasizes that HB3 prohibits addictive features only on websites, not on other “services that disseminate speech”—like, for instance, “books that end in cliffhangers.”

The Eleventh Circuit dismisses this in a footnote… suggesting that cliffhangers and other tricks to get people to read more in books can be regulated because they’re “features” not “speech.”

Further, the analogy to literary devices that make books more engaging—like cliffhangers, shorter chapters, or serialization—simply reinforces Florida’s contention that it’s not focused on speech and the accompanying ideas, topics, and messages, but rather on features that in and of themselves are agnostic as to content.

I am… flummoxed by this. Cliffhangers are features, not speech? Have any of these judges ever read a book? Short chapters are features not speech? What? Under the logic of this ruling, a state could issue a ban on short chapters and cliffhangers as being too “addictive” and the Eleventh Circuit says that would pass intermediate scrutiny and be just fine.