3 ms·
I think the author of this post would likely respond by noting that people with disabilities are not babies and can maturely handle that an article decrying an
by munificent 5y ago
I think the author of this post would likely respond by noting that people with disabilities are not babies and can maturely handle that an article decrying an app doesn't necessarily apply to them and is not trying to rob them of an assistive tool.
- NoraCodes 5y ago> is not trying to rob them of an assistive tool. The first anecdote in a post is about the author deciding not to build something that could be a useful accessibility tool, specifically because she sees it as a net negative - which might not be how she would think about it if she'd included people with disabilities in her analysis. Of course, this is not the end of the world; but there are cases where this kind of thinking could be much worse. "We won't put in an elevator - people should be okay with the discomfort of climbing the stairs." In fact, people did that so much that we had to pass the ADA to stop it! I am reminded of https://imgur.com/a4p4KLa https://imgur.com/a4p4KLa.
- munificent 5y agoAs someone who is currently in therapy for social anxiety, I think it is quite a stretch to equate an app that helps people ghost each other without feeling bad with elevators for people who can't physically climb stairs.
- NoraCodes 5y agoI wasn't equating them; I explicitly said that the latter was much worse.
- munificent 5y agoSorry, you're right. Even so, by placing them on the same scale, I think you're suggesting that there's a difference only in degree and that the two are on the same moral plane. But I think the difference is significant enough that they are qualitatively not the same.