5 ms·

When you look at their live demo (https://shieldfont.org/demo/ https://shieldfont.org/demo/), it says: If you use a screen reader, custom font, or translator, p

When you look at their live demo (https://shieldfont.org/demo/ https://shieldfont.org/demo/), it says: If you use a screen reader, custom font, or translator, please uncover the text before reading. They also actively block copying the text, telling you to "uncover" the text first. The uncover operation is VERY expensive. Anyone using assistive technologies or trying to copy "protected" text is SOL. Search engines will index the decoy. You'll get no traffic. Their solution is basically putting yourself in a black hole.

evnp 2mo ago
Isn't this the same sort of cost CloudFlare and anime catgirls are making us pay daily? Only enough to deter bots, or "a few seconds processing." I take your point that one extra click/interaction required for screen readers only is objectively more friction, but it's only by exploring these technologies instead of dismissing them that we'll arrive at UX solutions truly work for people of all stripes (and ideally, not for bots, scrapers, and the like). I think if you're applying a tool like this you already have very different priorities than fueling Google.
- kstenerud 2mo ago
  As soon as you need to put a "decode" button for accessibility functions to work, you're effectively posting the key along with the cipher. It's self-defeating because any tool that supports screen readers will also support scraping. It's a fool's errand.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
    Accessibility isn't optional, so what do you propose?
    - kstenerud 2mo ago
      I propose using the internet the way it was designed: Open and readable by everything (including bots). Scraping is a legal issue. There is no technical prevention mechanism that isn't theater.
      - mschuster91 2mo ago
        > Scraping is a legal issue. The problem is... it's a legal issue we cannot solve. America and China are large enough to not give a fuck about what everyone else wants.
      - tekne 2mo ago
        A better technical solution imo is more P2P hosting -- say content addressing. Something designed to deal with the scrapers -- and maybe even make them bear infrastructure costs.
317070 2mo ago
> Search engines will index the decoy. You'll get no traffic. Their solution is basically putting yourself in a black hole. It's only search engines? And who uses those anymore anyway? Other bots? It doesn't affect organic traffic, so you are not really putting yourself into a black hole. A lot of website are driven by social media and organic traffic, so they would be just fine with this approach.
- 8cvor6j844qw_d6 2mo ago
  Same thoughts. The black hole concerns are overstated for personal stuff when nothing is at stake. Planning to adopt one of the fonts and see how it goes.
nosioptar 2mo ago
Fortunately, the live demo doesnt work for me on Firefox mobile. I can see the text and copy/paste without "uncover". Not sure if that's due to ublock or one of the font settings in ff.

evnp 2mo ago

Isn't this the same sort of cost CloudFlare and anime catgirls are making us pay daily? Only enough to deter bots, or "a few seconds processing." I take your point that one extra click/interaction required for screen readers only is objectively more friction, but it's only by exploring these technologies instead of dismissing them that we'll arrive at UX solutions truly work for people of all stripes (and ideally, not for bots, scrapers, and the like). I think if you're applying a tool like this you already have very different priorities than fueling Google.

kstenerud 2mo ago
As soon as you need to put a "decode" button for accessibility functions to work, you're effectively posting the key along with the cipher. It's self-defeating because any tool that supports screen readers will also support scraping. It's a fool's errand.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
  Accessibility isn't optional, so what do you propose?
  - kstenerud 2mo ago
    I propose using the internet the way it was designed: Open and readable by everything (including bots). Scraping is a legal issue. There is no technical prevention mechanism that isn't theater.
    - mschuster91 2mo ago
      > Scraping is a legal issue. The problem is... it's a legal issue we cannot solve. America and China are large enough to not give a fuck about what everyone else wants.
    - tekne 2mo ago
      A better technical solution imo is more P2P hosting -- say content addressing. Something designed to deal with the scrapers -- and maybe even make them bear infrastructure costs.

317070 2mo ago

> Search engines will index the decoy. You'll get no traffic. Their solution is basically putting yourself in a black hole. It's only search engines? And who uses those anymore anyway? Other bots? It doesn't affect organic traffic, so you are not really putting yourself into a black hole. A lot of website are driven by social media and organic traffic, so they would be just fine with this approach.

8cvor6j844qw_d6 2mo ago
Same thoughts. The black hole concerns are overstated for personal stuff when nothing is at stake. Planning to adopt one of the fonts and see how it goes.

nosioptar 2mo ago

Fortunately, the live demo doesnt work for me on Firefox mobile. I can see the text and copy/paste without "uncover". Not sure if that's due to ublock or one of the font settings in ff.