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.
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.
Nice.
I would be happy to add your links
There are probably better ones. As a web developer, you may know a few.
The technical guidelines are the most general covering every situation & technology including those unlikely here. We’re most likely dealing with Situation B in those guidelines
Situation B: If a short description can not serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content (e.g., a chart or diagram)
It states that following technique
G95: Providing short text alternatives that provide a brief description of the non-text content
plus an additional technique including any of
- G73: Providing a long description in another location with a link to it that is immediately adjacent to the non-text content
- G74: Providing a long description in text near the non-text content, with a reference to the location of the long description in the short description
suffices. In practice, that suggests (in order of practicality to minimize effort)
If a web accessible alternative exists (eg, the image came from a web accessible web page), then set the post’s URL field to its location and set the post’s alt text field to “comic as described in link”.
Otherwise, set the post’s alt text field to “comic as described in post body”, and set the post’s body field to a text alternative. The poster will probably have to transcribe the comic. Text recognition technology may assist in that task.
If the text alternative is short, though, then setting the alt text field to the entire text alternative suffices as described in technique H37.
submitted 2026-04-09 20:12:57 +0000
I will accept feedback (comments in this post) until Saturday, April 11, 2026 at 3PM EDT (19:00 UTC)
That was slightly less than 2 days.
How about basic web accessibility[1]: at the very least a text alternative[2][3] or link to a web accessible alternative?
It ought to be prerequisite to any web content.
All web interfaces allow setting alt text & URL fields when submitting/editing a post.
There is no valid excuse not to post web accessible content & enforce that as a standard, and it’s a basic sign of human decency/respect.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that. In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward. Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny. The less common disclaimer
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor. People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk. An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
this community seems to cower from defending ↩︎