this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)

Blind Main

479 readers
2 users here now

The main community at rblind.com, for discussion of all things blindness.

You can find the rules for this community, and all other communities we run, here: https://ourblind.com/comunity-guidelines/ Lemmy specifics: By participating on the rblind.com Lemmy server, you are able to participate on other communities not run, controlled, or hosted by us. When doing so, you are expected to abide by all of the rules of those communities, in edition to also following the rules linked above. Should the rules of another community conflict with our rules, so long as you are participating from the rblind.com website, our rules take priority. Should we receive complaints from other instances or communities that you are repeatedly, knowingly, and maliciously breaking there rules, we may take moderator action against you, even if your posts comply with all of the rblind.com rules linked above.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, what are the preferred anti-bot/spam systems that work for blind users? How do they work?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Proof of work is pretty good. Also, email and phone number verification can reduce the need for this type of verification at all. Similarly, punting the problem to someone else and allowing login via Apple/Facebook/other open ID provider can help. Apple also has a system for verifying that a request comes from a real apple device that services like cloudflare use. But if you have to do it yourself, the key is offering a visual captcha, an audio captcha, and a text-based captcha. Also, try to maintain a trust score for both accounts and IP addresses. Captchas have to made so difficult today to keep out the bots that you need to make sure your users only have to solve them once. As well, if I know the captcha will only happen once, while it’s not ideal, I could request help with it. But if the captcha is on every login, or once a day or whatever, I can’t. Between proof of work, rate limiting, and email verification, and trust scores, 99 percent of captchas aren’t needed and aren’t doing anything. So the first step is understanding the problem you’re trying to solve, and determining if a captcha is the best way to solve it at all. It probably isn’t.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks for that info. Fortunately, I probably wont ever need to implement any form of anti-bot myself, but still good to know what works well.

Captchas are definitely getting very hard, even for non-blind users. Getting "Click on all the bicycles" and missing the 5 pixels tall bike and having to restart is very frustrating.

[–] breakingcups 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How would they even deem to determine that one is not blind over the internet?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It seems they decided that based on the author saying that they "looked at the browser console" so either based on using the word "looked" or they deemed using the browser console to be sketchy and enough to disqualify the author, either way pretty shitty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Some people are legally blind as well. CAPCHAs are often either small sometimes blurry pictures or a deliberately blurry font. Someone with dyslexia may also struggle to read some CAPCHAs.

So banning someone over this is just reprehensible and ignorant unless there is truly evidence that they were trying to build a bot or otherwise maliciously use the site. :(

[–] Anticorp 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure blind people still use the word "looked" in that context when communicating online.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

@Anticorp @BakedCatboy Hey I wonder what happens if I mention this thing? Nothing good, probably. The fediverse is weird.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I didn't think I implied otherwise, I did say it was shitty of them because it makes no sense to assume someone isn't blind just because of their word choice. I'm just guessing at what their reasoning is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It feels, to me, like they thought the author was trying to get an accessibility cookie for a bot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Could be that too, but it would have to be still based on either the author using the word "looked" or mentioning using the browser console because that's the only information they could be going off of, which is all I was saying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I suspect they latched onto the 401 return code and made no determination on whether the author is or isn’t blind.

“It sounds like they want to use this for a bot - they can’t be blind!”