• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    While I do enjoy a little bit of chaos and schadenfreude, it would be nice to block out user names. Call out the mistake, not the person.

    Showing public information isn’t immoral: we should be able to simply link to online content. Blocking out public information & breaking accessibility to do it, however, is patronizing & wrong.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Then it would still be not nice (ie, patronizing & wrong) for the reasons stated in the rest of the message.

            • Wren@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              13 hours ago

              I can agree everyone should get to enjoy equal access to the web and still believe censoring user names is nice. There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.

              Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?

              How about a transcript for the image? That way user names could stay blocked.

              • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?

                Yes: that would certainly reveal the names.

                There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.

                Easy: don’t harass. There are better controls on harassment by others than breaking accessibility & all the other considerations (usability, web connectivity, authenticity, searchability, fault tolerance) like reporting abuses.

                Transcripts still break web connectivity (to explore context) & authenticity.

                Your approach requests OP conduct/persist definite harm to speculatively prevent indefinite harm someone else won’t necessarily perform. How is requesting definite harm to an uninvolved party nice or right?

                Everyone has moral agency to do the right thing here, and respecting that would be just.

                • Wren@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  If your goal is accessibility, you’re taking quite a long walk to get there.