4 ms·

>The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. A website is a work of art, and nobody has a right to someone else's ar

by yucky 4y ago

>The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. A website is a work of art, and nobody has a right to someone else's art. Disabled or not.

roenxi 4y ago
On what basis do you say that? You seem to be in conflict with Israeli law on this one, and I think on a moral level that is a bit shaky. If your art could be appreciated by disabled people, it seems a bit questionable to assert that there is a 'right' to exclude them. I want to be clear - I think all this regulatory interference is doing more harm than good. But I don't see why this case is different because it is working on behalf of disabled people rather than ... I can't figure out who the charger stuff is meant to be helping, I see a lot of people outraged that they bought 2x chargers, which seems like a funny group of people to be protecting.
- yucky 4y ago
  A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. This argument is absurd. Nobody has a right to prevent someone form expressing themselves just because they can't enjoy it.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. And I don't see how this is going to fit in with your original point on multi-billion dollar corporations. If we want to keep to the idea of absurd outcomes, why is it so much more absurd that Mr Michael has to make accessible videos but world's best phone design company isn't considered competent to design a phone? These are both pretty absurd.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? Yes, you did. And then followed up with the same line of reasoning again in the next sentence: > The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. But my painting is only meant to be appreciated visually because that is how I choose to express it. The idea that I should be forced to represent my art in a way I never intended it to be, is absurd.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        If you feel that describing your painting to a blind person is beneath your dignity as an artist, to the point that you'd rather have left it unpainted, then truly I sit in awe of your principles. But why you think that you can apply that sort of standard to yourself, but not see a level of absurdity in the EU commission trying to wrest phone design away from Apple of all companies is still a profound mystery even after all these posts. They have as much a "right" to design integrity as an artist does.
        yucky 4y ago
        >If you feel that describing your painting to a blind person is beneath your dignity as an artist It has nothing to do with dignity it has to do with artistic vision. If you don't want to present your art in ways you don't intend it to be consumed, you shouldn't be forced. If someone else wants to do it for others, that's fine. You could even start a business taking art forms and describing them for people who can't appreciate them in their natural setting.
        nyberg 4y ago
        It's not just apple, it's all devices of a similar size which currently reduce accessability by having their own unique charging cable as a requirement. Forcing USB-C imcreases accessibility for the public and reduces general waste for physical devices.
    - kursemaster 4y ago

by yucky 4y ago

>The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. A website is a work of art, and nobody has a right to someone else's art. Disabled or not.

roenxi 4y ago

On what basis do you say that? You seem to be in conflict with Israeli law on this one, and I think on a moral level that is a bit shaky. If your art could be appreciated by disabled people, it seems a bit questionable to assert that there is a 'right' to exclude them. I want to be clear - I think all this regulatory interference is doing more harm than good. But I don't see why this case is different because it is working on behalf of disabled people rather than ... I can't figure out who the charger stuff is meant to be helping, I see a lot of people outraged that they bought 2x chargers, which seems like a funny group of people to be protecting.

yucky 4y ago
A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. This argument is absurd. Nobody has a right to prevent someone form expressing themselves just because they can't enjoy it.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. And I don't see how this is going to fit in with your original point on multi-billion dollar corporations. If we want to keep to the idea of absurd outcomes, why is it so much more absurd that Mr Michael has to make accessible videos but world's best phone design company isn't considered competent to design a phone? These are both pretty absurd.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? Yes, you did. And then followed up with the same line of reasoning again in the next sentence: > The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. But my painting is only meant to be appreciated visually because that is how I choose to express it. The idea that I should be forced to represent my art in a way I never intended it to be, is absurd.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      If you feel that describing your painting to a blind person is beneath your dignity as an artist, to the point that you'd rather have left it unpainted, then truly I sit in awe of your principles. But why you think that you can apply that sort of standard to yourself, but not see a level of absurdity in the EU commission trying to wrest phone design away from Apple of all companies is still a profound mystery even after all these posts. They have as much a "right" to design integrity as an artist does.
      - yucky 4y ago
        >If you feel that describing your painting to a blind person is beneath your dignity as an artist It has nothing to do with dignity it has to do with artistic vision. If you don't want to present your art in ways you don't intend it to be consumed, you shouldn't be forced. If someone else wants to do it for others, that's fine. You could even start a business taking art forms and describing them for people who can't appreciate them in their natural setting.
      - nyberg 4y ago
        It's not just apple, it's all devices of a similar size which currently reduce accessability by having their own unique charging cable as a requirement. Forcing USB-C imcreases accessibility for the public and reduces general waste for physical devices.
  - kursemaster 4y ago