InsanePeopleFacebook

5258 readers

1 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world

BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world

No problem here (jlai.lu)

submitted 9 months ago by Mubelotix@jlai.lu to c/insanepeoplefacebook@lemmy.world

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's okay to leave public social media posts unredacted: they're not state secrets. It's also okay to post link to (archived) source for accessibility & general usability.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In free nations, publicizing state secrets would be more socially and morally acceptable than publicizing people's names and faces over mistakes they have made, and the same for if you don't want to promote those people and their twisted ideals.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Imagine applying that reasoning to the public mistakes businesses or governments have made?

If we're going to be serious about morality, then breaking accessibility[^break] when simpler alternatives do not is more immoral than showing public information[^moral].

Moreover, with freedom & no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, disclosing non-secret information is just. If people are equal, then

How does anyone get to decide better than the public matters of public business?
How does a particular person get to decide for everyone what is a mistake? Couldn't they be wrong?

Gatekeeping is fraught with its own problems like the gatekeeper putting their judgement on public matters ahead of the public's. It's non-egalitarian & defies people's right to know public affairs, so it's morally dubious.

[^break]:

Images of text break much that text or a link to (archived) source do not.

Issues when image lacks text alternative such as link - usability - we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR - text search is unavailable - the system can't - reflow text to varied screen sizes - vary presentation (size, contrast) - vary modality (audio, braille) - accessibility - some users can't read this due to misleading alt text - users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments - systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices - searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way - fault tolerance: no text fallback if image breaks.

Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

[^moral]: which isn't immoral