3 ms·
It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once kne
by nonbirithm 7y ago
It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once knew a hearing-disabled person and the hardship it brought them affected nearly every interaction with them I had. For me that trade-off is not worth it.
If the best channel to help the deaf listen clearly is also the best one for letting eavesdroppers listen clearly, then this is a problem best not handled with such a heavy handed solution - possibly not even a technological solution at all.
- inetknght 7y ago> It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once knew a hearing-disabled person and the hardship it brought them affected nearly every interaction with them I had. For me that trade-off is not worth it. We already do this by making so many things practically require internet access but then also not making things easily accessible to eg screen readers or text mode browsers
- vages 7y agoNorway, where I live, has enacted laws banning inaccessible websites (with the exception of websites made by individuals). https://medium.com/confrere/its-illegal-to-have-an-inaccessible-website-in-norway-and-that-s-good-news-for-all-of-us-b59a9e929d54 https://medium.com/confrere/its-illegal-to-have-an-inaccessi... The law has been well-received both by the public and by businesses, with very few actual fines being issued, but many bad pages have been soft-forced into improvement. So it's actually possible, but will probably be much harder in the US, in which business, government and taxpayers/customers seem less aligned.