Facebook hates the handicapped? | Hacker News Reader

Facebook hates the handicapped?

bogon-flux.blogspot.com

13 pointsExoseq17 comments

That's really too bad.

So was the Gaming Simplifier mainly meant for or used by people with disabilities? Or was it meant to get around various interfaces meant to get extra pageview "clicks", and it ended up being amazingly useful for particular people with disabilities?

It can be pretty interesting to look at people with disabilities' use of software and user interfaces as use cases. Making software good for PWD to use can result in better software all around, the way curb cuts for wheelchairs are also great for people with strollers or skateboards, or the way thick-grip utensils originally developed for people with arthritis or Parkinson's are more ergonomic and easy to use for everyone.

Of course there isn't one way to "be disabled" and different people have different requirements. But particular environments can be very useful to particular communities of people with disabilities -- for example, MUDS can be very accessible to blind and visually impaired people.

Facebook and Facebook developers should try taking a look at this case from the point of view of making good and useable software. I know... as if that'll happen!

I'm not sure it matters, but the primary intent was not to help people with disabilities. It was closer to a "video game trainer" from the days of yore.

Seriously? I don't know who posts these, but this extension, as well as many "game simplifier" apps have nothing to do with disabled people. Modern operating systems have great facilities for all kinds of disabilities. No, this type of apps are cheats used to ruin the gameplay for those that don't use them, and to piss off game developers.

News protip: when a headline asks a question, the answer is almost certainly "no".

I'm sorry, but perhaps if you have difficulty clicking, perhaps a game who's entire purpose is to sit there clicking on stuff is not the right game for you.

regardless of the designers intention, it is nonetheless a potential side effect that such an extension might open up play to a wider audience, including people with varying levels of ability or impairments.

true enough, that is both a more accurate and more humane representation.

Facebook hates anything that makes their ads less effective, which this extension did by automatically clicking past them. It's clear that Facebook's priorities have nothing to do woth satisfying users and everything to do with satisfying advertisers. Why else would they repeatedly make sweeping changes that are universally despised by users?

As is often stated here, if you are not paying for it, you are the product.

I just wanted to insert a reminder that people are not "handicapped" and they are certainly never "disabled". However, there are people who have disabilities.

It's very difficult for someone - even the PC police - to control language.

Nobody can control language but over time we can certainly change it to be a little more respectful, sensitive, accurate and appropriate. Once upon a time, it was perfectly fine for white people to call black people "nigger" and "boy". Change happens because people raise the topic for discussion.

There's a huge gap between making people realize a racist slur is wrong, to realizing that disabled is wrong when you're telling them 'has disabilities' is right.

Having a disability does not make you disabled. That's not an opinion, that's just an accurate use of the English language. Telling someone they are "disabled" when they are perfectly capable of managing their work and their life, is just sloppy and rude. And yes, it's also a slur.

While I Agree with giraffe in principle, there is certainly a distinction, as there are people who are "disabled" due to the nature of their disabilities, so in this way it is fundamentally different from a racial slur, insofar as it reflects a matter of degree.

Also, by definition, "having a disability" implies being "disabled" in some degree.

That said, calling all people with disabilities categorically "disabled", while lexically and logically correct, does carry a clearly inaccurate and prejudicial -implication- that a person with a disability is somehow -less capable-. In this, giraffe is correct, that the use of "disabled" in this way can easily convey an inaccurate connotation of reduced capability, an thus its usage in this way is both unenlightened and potentially prejudicial - but I could hardly put it into the same category as a racial slur, which is clearly intended to diminish or marginalize.

Most of us are "disabled" to some degree (i.e. there's some normal ability which we completely suck at) but physical disabilities are more obvious and striking to the casual observer so it's easy and rather lazy for people to think "he's disabled and I'm not". Whether or not the intention is there, this still diminishes and marginalizes the person with a physical disability.

> , an thus its usage in this way is both unenlightened and potentially prejudicial - but I could hardly put it into the same category as a racial slur, which is clearly intended to diminish or marginalize.

which was kind of my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com