10 ms·

a11y is no more a "nice to have" than a wheelchair ramp. It's a legal and moral requirement. This is like saying security is "nice to have"

adam_arthur 4y ago
There are no moral requirements
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Certainly not for "free speech" that costs $8/month.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    AFAIK that’s a misconstrual. Having a “verified” blue checkmark will cost $8 a month, but using Twitter and saying whatever you want on it will still be free.
    - joshmanders 4y ago
      Too many people think that checkmark = free speech and all us peasants using Twitter without it aren't worthy of the mark.
    - kjeetgill 4y ago
      I have no horse in this race — I'm not on Twitter — but does anyone know if the blue checkmark boosts your posts in the feed/recommendation engine? I'd expect it does implicitly at least because people must interact with those users differently.
      - fathyb 4y ago
        It does, verified accounts get prioritized ranking and are listed first in tweet responses.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Before it was that private companies could do whatever they wanted, now many trying to impose their will on Twitter’s actions all of a sudden. Huh
    - evgen 4y ago
      In what delusional world could private companies ever 'do whatever they wanted'? We have huge legal tomes filled with laws to prevent this sort of sociopathic thinking from becoming reality for the sake of profit.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        Before it was about freedom of speech for private corporations to control their platforms however they wanted. Now it’s all about rules and regulations. Huh
    - kjeetgill 4y ago
      > Huh Before you let that cynicism build up too much, for the record, not all of us Elon+Twitter skeptics have a problem with the $8 thing. You're just not going to hear from any one who didn't have an issue with it. Related: Is there a quippy term or a fallacy for the (very natural!) habit of treating a random sample of a million voices and expecting a coherent message from them? I feel like it's related but distinct from a strawman.
      - lmm 4y ago
        "Weak man" is when you take a genuine-but-weak take from one of your opponents and treat them as representing your opposition in general. (That's not quite what you're asking for though, I think)
        kjeetgill 4y ago
        That's definitely close, thanks!
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
  - lmm 4y ago
    "Anyone can get it for $8/month" is a lot closer to free speech ideals than "You can get it if you're lefty enough".
    - Lutger 4y ago
      If you think the bannable offenses on Twitter only gave enough room for the left, you are not just to the right of that, but more like far right extremism. Twitter did and does, in fact, tolerate right-wing and conservative views. It is full of them. Don't mistake hate speech, disinfo, racism or whatever you think twitter was violating 'free speech' for as being the right wing. It is not.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        Yes, like when they banned people for proposing that Covid came from a lab. Or when they banned people for stating that the vaccine doesn’t eliminate transmission. Both largely consensus views now. Very hospitable to alternative viewpoints indeed. Maybe in a bubble
- sosull 4y ago
  Immanuel Kant came up with the idea of a categorical imperative. It’s one of the foundation stones in the field of moral philosophy (or ethics). An example would be the moral requirement not to kill other people. The only way to successfully prove that there are no moral requirements is by arguing the point with people who don’t know any better.
  - skissane 4y ago
    There are many philosophers who disagree with Kant's categorical imperative though – even among those who agree that ethics is objective (in some sense). The categorical imperative gives morality a deontological flavour, to which many will object–such as consequentialists. And there are others who don't object to the deontological flavour per se, but who think there are better foundations for such a morality (e.g. natural law theorists). I agree with your position that ethics is objective, but I don't think Kant's categorical imperative is a very good argument for its objectivity – a person can coherently accept ethics/morality as being objective, yet doubt or deny the categorical imperative. I think "ethics is objective" is one of those things where very many people can agree on a conclusion, yet disagree massively on what is the correct reasoning to reach that conclusion.
    - sosull 4y ago
      It was a somewhat rushed point, admittedly. I was reaching for enlightenment-era imagery to challenge the seeming disavowal of morality itself. I note that OP extended those remarks elsewhere to claim that the law is the preferred source of moral constraint. I'm not even sure of what to say to that. But I very much appreciate the depth of your point. I've always found validation (?) in the deontological aspect of Kant's idealism because I think it neatly describes why people feel obligations to those they interact with most closely (i.e. I feed my child because I should, rather than to avoid his hunger). I certainly take your point that the categorical imperative isn't the best or only tool for interpreting moral dilemmas. Honestly, I was bringing it up in part because it's a recognisable phrase that might infer that there's more to the question of ethics than unexamined instinct.
      - 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lpapez 4y ago
  Unless you're trying to be edgy (which is not obvious), this make you sound like a psychopath.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    I’m simply stating the obvious. The parent commenter is factually incorrect. Relying on companies to self police morality is an idealistic view that results in failure. That’s where the democracy and government part comes in. Twitter is required by law to be compliant with accessibility standards, and so they will be. Whether or not this team is laid off doesn’t change that
    - lpapez 4y ago
      And I agree, but that is not how I read your comment. If you expanded it with "There are no moral requirements... for companies to provide accessibility features" it would have been entirely different story.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        People can read into it whatever they want. I was just stating a fact. Personally I’m perturbed that so many people expect society to work out of goodwill and not through enforced regulations decided by the voters. Certainly that world would be nice, but it’s naive and ineffective
        lpapez 4y ago
        I don't think people downvote you because we "expect society to work out of goodwill and not through enforced regulations decided by the voters", but because your blanket statmenet denying the existince of moral requirements is interpreted negatively. I for one agree that relying just on morals is not enough and that regulations is needed, but your sentence is obviously not universally interpreted in that light.
- chris_wot 4y ago
  The American Disabilities Act would like a word with you.
jimt1234 4y ago
I've worked in security for years. If I had a dollar for every time I heard that (security is a nice-to-have), either directly or implied, I could retire. LOL
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Lutger 4y ago
So you're saying it's a nice to have? /s For all its pretense of wanting to be the Town Square, somehow I don't expect it to be a very inclusive one. Getting rid of a11y team is exactly what I would expect, crisis or not.
jacooper 4y ago
Nope, security affects way more users than accessibility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33497445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33497445 And firing the A11y team doesn't immediately remove all accessibility from Twitter, they are forced by US law to follow accessibility standards and they would, they just won't do higher than what's required.

adam_arthur 4y ago

There are no moral requirements

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Certainly not for "free speech" that costs $8/month.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  AFAIK that’s a misconstrual. Having a “verified” blue checkmark will cost $8 a month, but using Twitter and saying whatever you want on it will still be free.
  - joshmanders 4y ago
    Too many people think that checkmark = free speech and all us peasants using Twitter without it aren't worthy of the mark.
  - kjeetgill 4y ago
    I have no horse in this race — I'm not on Twitter — but does anyone know if the blue checkmark boosts your posts in the feed/recommendation engine? I'd expect it does implicitly at least because people must interact with those users differently.
    - fathyb 4y ago
      It does, verified accounts get prioritized ranking and are listed first in tweet responses.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Before it was that private companies could do whatever they wanted, now many trying to impose their will on Twitter’s actions all of a sudden. Huh
  - evgen 4y ago
    In what delusional world could private companies ever 'do whatever they wanted'? We have huge legal tomes filled with laws to prevent this sort of sociopathic thinking from becoming reality for the sake of profit.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      Before it was about freedom of speech for private corporations to control their platforms however they wanted. Now it’s all about rules and regulations. Huh
  - kjeetgill 4y ago
    > Huh Before you let that cynicism build up too much, for the record, not all of us Elon+Twitter skeptics have a problem with the $8 thing. You're just not going to hear from any one who didn't have an issue with it. Related: Is there a quippy term or a fallacy for the (very natural!) habit of treating a random sample of a million voices and expecting a coherent message from them? I feel like it's related but distinct from a strawman.
    - lmm 4y ago
      "Weak man" is when you take a genuine-but-weak take from one of your opponents and treat them as representing your opposition in general. (That's not quite what you're asking for though, I think)
      - kjeetgill 4y ago
        That's definitely close, thanks!
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
- lmm 4y ago
  "Anyone can get it for $8/month" is a lot closer to free speech ideals than "You can get it if you're lefty enough".
  - Lutger 4y ago
    If you think the bannable offenses on Twitter only gave enough room for the left, you are not just to the right of that, but more like far right extremism. Twitter did and does, in fact, tolerate right-wing and conservative views. It is full of them. Don't mistake hate speech, disinfo, racism or whatever you think twitter was violating 'free speech' for as being the right wing. It is not.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      Yes, like when they banned people for proposing that Covid came from a lab. Or when they banned people for stating that the vaccine doesn’t eliminate transmission. Both largely consensus views now. Very hospitable to alternative viewpoints indeed. Maybe in a bubble
sosull 4y ago
Immanuel Kant came up with the idea of a categorical imperative. It’s one of the foundation stones in the field of moral philosophy (or ethics). An example would be the moral requirement not to kill other people. The only way to successfully prove that there are no moral requirements is by arguing the point with people who don’t know any better.
- skissane 4y ago
  There are many philosophers who disagree with Kant's categorical imperative though – even among those who agree that ethics is objective (in some sense). The categorical imperative gives morality a deontological flavour, to which many will object–such as consequentialists. And there are others who don't object to the deontological flavour per se, but who think there are better foundations for such a morality (e.g. natural law theorists). I agree with your position that ethics is objective, but I don't think Kant's categorical imperative is a very good argument for its objectivity – a person can coherently accept ethics/morality as being objective, yet doubt or deny the categorical imperative. I think "ethics is objective" is one of those things where very many people can agree on a conclusion, yet disagree massively on what is the correct reasoning to reach that conclusion.
  - sosull 4y ago
    It was a somewhat rushed point, admittedly. I was reaching for enlightenment-era imagery to challenge the seeming disavowal of morality itself. I note that OP extended those remarks elsewhere to claim that the law is the preferred source of moral constraint. I'm not even sure of what to say to that. But I very much appreciate the depth of your point. I've always found validation (?) in the deontological aspect of Kant's idealism because I think it neatly describes why people feel obligations to those they interact with most closely (i.e. I feed my child because I should, rather than to avoid his hunger). I certainly take your point that the categorical imperative isn't the best or only tool for interpreting moral dilemmas. Honestly, I was bringing it up in part because it's a recognisable phrase that might infer that there's more to the question of ethics than unexamined instinct.
    - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lpapez 4y ago
Unless you're trying to be edgy (which is not obvious), this make you sound like a psychopath.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  I’m simply stating the obvious. The parent commenter is factually incorrect. Relying on companies to self police morality is an idealistic view that results in failure. That’s where the democracy and government part comes in. Twitter is required by law to be compliant with accessibility standards, and so they will be. Whether or not this team is laid off doesn’t change that
  - lpapez 4y ago
    And I agree, but that is not how I read your comment. If you expanded it with "There are no moral requirements... for companies to provide accessibility features" it would have been entirely different story.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      People can read into it whatever they want. I was just stating a fact. Personally I’m perturbed that so many people expect society to work out of goodwill and not through enforced regulations decided by the voters. Certainly that world would be nice, but it’s naive and ineffective
      - lpapez 4y ago
        I don't think people downvote you because we "expect society to work out of goodwill and not through enforced regulations decided by the voters", but because your blanket statmenet denying the existince of moral requirements is interpreted negatively. I for one agree that relying just on morals is not enough and that regulations is needed, but your sentence is obviously not universally interpreted in that light.
chris_wot 4y ago
The American Disabilities Act would like a word with you.

jimt1234 4y ago

I've worked in security for years. If I had a dollar for every time I heard that (security is a nice-to-have), either directly or implied, I could retire. LOL

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Lutger 4y ago

So you're saying it's a nice to have? /s For all its pretense of wanting to be the Town Square, somehow I don't expect it to be a very inclusive one. Getting rid of a11y team is exactly what I would expect, crisis or not.

jacooper 4y ago

Nope, security affects way more users than accessibility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33497445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33497445 And firing the A11y team doesn't immediately remove all accessibility from Twitter, they are forced by US law to follow accessibility standards and they would, they just won't do higher than what's required.