Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#2The Streisand Effect is in full force alright: I never even heard of "Appin" until this thread.
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#3Love seeing people stand up to bullies. Techdirt has been fighting the good fight for a very long time.
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#4The Streisand Effect is in full force alright: I never even heard of "Appin" until this thread.
Or Rajat Khare. Noted sleezebag.
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#5[deleted]
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#6The Streisand Effect is in full force alright: I never even heard of "Appin" until this thread.
It was Techdirt founder, Mike Masnick, who first coined the term Streisand Effect 19 years ago:
https://www.techdirt.com/2005/01/05/since-when-is-it-illegal...
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#7Hey TechDirt! What's the point of making a image of text to embed in your site? Its text becomes blurry and hard to read compared to using an actual font. What a horrible decisions for legibility.
But seriously, what's the thought process for a website to do this? Even embedded tweets are not pre-rendered images. Some one in some meeting decided that using a rasterized image would be awesomesauce. What kind of sick people were involved?
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#8Hey TechDirt! What's the point of making a image of text to embed in your site? Its text becomes blurry and hard to read compared to using an actual font. What a horrible decisions for legibility. But seriously, what's the thought process for a website to do this? Even embedded tweets are not pre-rendered images. Some one in some meeting decided that using a rasterized image would be awesomesauce. What kind of sick p…
I think it's a reasonable way to present it as evidence of what had been available from someone else's server rather than just words that are presented by their own server. From an accessibility perspective, it would be nice if they could ensure that a screen reader will start reading the text when it encounters the image but it otherwise seems to be a good reporting practice.
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#9Hey TechDirt! What's the point of making a image of text to embed in your site? Its text becomes blurry and hard to read compared to using an actual font. What a horrible decisions for legibility. But seriously, what's the thought process for a website to do this? Even embedded tweets are not pre-rendered images. Some one in some meeting decided that using a rasterized image would be awesomesauce. What kind of sick p…
??? Those images aren't blurry or hard to read at all. What does it really matter if they embed a legible image or use text?
Re: Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
#10Hey TechDirt! What's the point of making a image of text to embed in your site? Its text becomes blurry and hard to read compared to using an actual font. What a horrible decisions for legibility. But seriously, what's the thought process for a website to do this? Even embedded tweets are not pre-rendered images. Some one in some meeting decided that using a rasterized image would be awesomesauce. What kind of sick p…
??? Those images aren't blurry or hard to read at all. What does it really matter if they embed a legible image or use text?
> What does it really matter if they embed a legible image or use text?
It matters if you’re using a screen reader or browsing without downloading images due to limited bandwidth. Images also don’t resize text or change contrast to match my browser settings.