2 ms·

[Edit: Didn't see that you started answering my last question before I wrote this, about the operational implications of trying to eliminate everything that cou

[Edit: Didn't see that you started answering my last question before I wrote this, about the operational implications of trying to eliminate everything that could be considered inadvertent discrimination. Going to just leave this comment as is, as I do think the utilitarian/deontological thinking about product development processes is an interesting quandary in today's climate :) ] Given this thinking about inadvertent discrimination, and that the word 'discrimination' is very much coded as a 'bad' thing, what should be done about it? Should any website/product that launches without being perfectly operable for every single user be sanctioned in some way? If not, aren't we supporting inadvertent discrimination? Isn't any allowance of inadvertent discrimination a bad thing? Should there be some sort of utilitarian calculation with it? Or is it strictly a deontological thing? There can be no discrimination, therefore, we must not allow or we should disincentivize product development processes which release versions before they are equally workable for everyone?

lstamour 5y ago
I'd also point out that organizations can have incentives align with accessibility and inclusion rather than discrimination, accidental or otherwise. For example, having a textual version of a video or image makes your page more optimized for basic search engines. Now, of course, the same incentives could lead to dark patterns, lack of privacy, or even dividing people further, perhaps becoming a platform for divisiveness. Personally, I think that we can identify and mark certain dark patterns as illegal, outright. We can encourage plugins and browser settings to enhance privacy. The hardest question is how much we need everything to be perfectly accessible and to not cause further discrimination or harm. That last one is difficult. I think ultimately the best answer we have is to classify some bad actors like we would dark patterns. This forum is an example of how rules and community can lead to better civil discourse online, but it's not necessarily as diverse as it could be due to those same rules. I think there will always be an unregulated middle ground where no one takes responsibility until they (a) have to and (b) understand how to, and that's especially true of government services at local and regional levels.

lstamour 5y ago

I'd also point out that organizations can have incentives align with accessibility and inclusion rather than discrimination, accidental or otherwise. For example, having a textual version of a video or image makes your page more optimized for basic search engines. Now, of course, the same incentives could lead to dark patterns, lack of privacy, or even dividing people further, perhaps becoming a platform for divisiveness. Personally, I think that we can identify and mark certain dark patterns as illegal, outright. We can encourage plugins and browser settings to enhance privacy. The hardest question is how much we need everything to be perfectly accessible and to not cause further discrimination or harm. That last one is difficult. I think ultimately the best answer we have is to classify some bad actors like we would dark patterns. This forum is an example of how rules and community can lead to better civil discourse online, but it's not necessarily as diverse as it could be due to those same rules. I think there will always be an unregulated middle ground where no one takes responsibility until they (a) have to and (b) understand how to, and that's especially true of government services at local and regional levels.