I can’t see any screenshots from the article, all require a bluesky account. At least on twitter you could see images without login before the takeover. I’m alright if a for profit websites hides “their” content behind a login wall, it’s their choice, but how lazy is this “journalism” where they don’t copy the images, they just link to the original tweets or whatever they called on bluesky.
bsky started with nine of its posts. wing shown publicly so when they flopped the switch (i think they also opened registration without invites) some people who had gotten used to their post being hidden from the rest of the net felt exposed and the devs added this settings.
while i do not think its a great setting i kinda get it. especially given that there are not (yet) private accounts so that’s the best they have
I don’t say “remove the source”, I say “the source can disappear, the way back machine have already been attacked, just do your own copy of the source and make it available”.
I know screenshots can be faked, but if your news source does it it is not reliable. Drop it immediately.
In that case, too, the text can be quoted, then just like magic it’s accessible.
A quote that links to the source is a strong combination.
Everyone benefits: the text is searchable, reflowable, adaptable to multi-modal input & output, easy to quote via copy & paste, etc.
It’s simply more useful & screenshots don’t inherently give any of that.
Yes. I talked about screenshots because the first message said:
I can’t see any screenshots from the article, all require a bluesky account. At least on twitter you could see images without login before the takeover.
For “text source only” I’m with you quotes are enough.
And if images are post anywhere, always provide an alt text, plz everyone !
how lazy is this “journalism” where they don’t copy the images
Images of web content usually break accessibility (implicit ableism) unless alt text is provided, which really amounts to a poor substitute for embedding content, block quoting, or linking to source (what the web was made for), where no alt text is needed because the actual text is there.
Stop breaking accessibility: oppose inaccessible screenshots of accessible content.
A top reply was posted on another lemmy community:
https://lemmy.world/post/27989752
I can’t see any screenshots from the article, all require a bluesky account. At least on twitter you could see images without login before the takeover. I’m alright if a for profit websites hides “their” content behind a login wall, it’s their choice, but how lazy is this “journalism” where they don’t copy the images, they just link to the original tweets or whatever they called on bluesky.
That’s weird. The bluesky links in the article work fine for me, and I don’t have a bluesky account.
Ahh hang on, this one doesn’t work but all the rest do
https://bsky.app/profile/megzavala.bsky.social/post/3lmdz2tu6xk2x
Ahh here we go: it’s a user made setting not a bluesky one
“Sign-in Required This user has requested that their content only be shown to signed-in users. This label was applied by the author.”
Why would a user choose to enable that? Would that make it less likely to be scraped by a bot?
Probably the same person who ends all of their comments on Lemmy with that stupid “anti-AI commercial license” or whatever bullshit.
It’s like the polar opposite of “Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.”
bsky started with nine of its posts. wing shown publicly so when they flopped the switch (i think they also opened registration without invites) some people who had gotten used to their post being hidden from the rest of the net felt exposed and the devs added this settings.
while i do not think its a great setting i kinda get it. especially given that there are not (yet) private accounts so that’s the best they have
TBH it’s better journalism to include the link, but they could do both.
Source can be destroyed. An alternative screenshoot backup/proof is good measure. Especially in web its better to not depend on an outside server.
Like if they close (or some billionaire buy them and requires an account for everything), your content becomes worthless.
Sources can be recovered in archives & web caches. Screenshots can be fake & often break accessibility.
Always prefer sources.
I don’t say “remove the source”, I say “the source can disappear, the way back machine have already been attacked, just do your own copy of the source and make it available”.
I know screenshots can be faked, but if your news source does it it is not reliable. Drop it immediately.
In that case, too, the text can be quoted, then just like magic it’s accessible. A quote that links to the source is a strong combination.
Everyone benefits: the text is searchable, reflowable, adaptable to multi-modal input & output, easy to quote via copy & paste, etc. It’s simply more useful & screenshots don’t inherently give any of that.
Yes. I talked about screenshots because the first message said:
For “text source only” I’m with you quotes are enough.
And if images are post anywhere, always provide an alt text, plz everyone !
If the point is to reproduce an image, not text, then yes, definitely provide those images. Agreed: nothing wrong in that.
Bleets?
Skeets
The Sheeples bleat on BlueSky?
Images of web content usually break accessibility (implicit ableism) unless alt text is provided, which really amounts to a poor substitute for embedding content, block quoting, or linking to source (what the web was made for), where no alt text is needed because the actual text is there.
Stop breaking accessibility: oppose inaccessible screenshots of accessible content.
Best reply to a greeting by Adobe