3 ms·
I'd rather see bot resistance (important for everyone) and privacy (important for everyone) take precedence over accessibility (important for a small minority)
by landl0rd 1y ago
I'd rather see bot resistance (important for everyone) and privacy (important for everyone) take precedence over accessibility (important for a small minority) and have laws change to reflect that.
- singpolyma3 1y agoI disagree that bot resistance is important to anyone, or even a reasonable goal for anyone at all. Bots are just users
- mikepurvis 1y agoBots are not just users in the battle against spam.
- singpolyma3 1y agoThen you want antispam not antibot
- rnmg 1y agoBots are users, but they aren't human users. I think it's fair to say that most web sites/apps value human users over bots (maybe that's wrong though?). But I think an argument can definitely be made the bot resistance is valuable/important to most people on the web.
- landl0rd 1y agoObjectively a lack of bot-resistance can make the service unusable for everyone. Good examples include twitter, where interesting stuff gets flooded by spam DMs and indian payout farmers, and the mentioned ticketing example, where objectively a lack of resistance leads to rent-seeking middlemen scalping tickets. Similarly a lack of privacy hurts everyone. The question is basically "would you rather have an equally-shitty service for everyone in the name of egalitarianism or a good service for most?" This seems a really easy choice for me because I don't see egalitarianism/accessibility as a moral imperative.
- sealeck 1y agoWhy is accessibility only important for a small minority?
- landl0rd 1y agoBecause objectively most of the population doesn’t depend on accessibility. Most people can complete a visual captcha.