2 ms·
> 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 acces
by 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.