I can’t see any screenshots from the article, all require a bluesky account. At least on twitter you could see images without login before the takeover. I’m alright if a for profit websites hides “their” content behind a login wall, it’s their choice, but how lazy is this “journalism” where they don’t copy the images, they just link to the original tweets or whatever they called on bluesky.
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
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.
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.
Yes. I talked about screenshots because the first message said:
I can’t see any screenshots from the article, all require a bluesky account. At least on twitter you could see images without login before the takeover.
For “text source only” I’m with you quotes are enough.
And if images are post anywhere, always provide an alt text, plz everyone !
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.
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
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.
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
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.
A top reply was posted on another lemmy community:
https://lemmy.world/post/27989752
I can’t see any screenshots from the article, all require a bluesky account. At least on twitter you could see images without login before the takeover. I’m alright if a for profit websites hides “their” content behind a login wall, it’s their choice, but how lazy is this “journalism” where they don’t copy the images, they just link to the original tweets or whatever they called on bluesky.
Best reply to a greeting by Adobe
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
https://bsky.app/profile/megzavala.bsky.social/post/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.”
Why would a user choose to enable that? Would that make it less likely to be scraped by a bot?
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.”
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
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 & often break accessibility.
Always prefer sources.
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.
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.
Yes. I talked about screenshots because the first message said:
For “text source only” I’m with you quotes are enough.
And if images are post anywhere, always provide an alt text, plz everyone !
If the point is to reproduce an image, not text, then yes, definitely provide those images. Agreed: nothing wrong in that.
Bleets?
Skeets
Lol, the article says skeet, but I like yours better.
The Sheeples bleat on BlueSky?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
As written multiple times, there are better alternatives. Disregarding them is shortsighted ableism. I suggest some attention span.
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?
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.
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
altattribute 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 thealtattribute. If you lack sense, you’ll tediously read the image and retype it into thealtattribute. Your choice.Realize anything yet?
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.