• BakedCatboy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

      • BakedCatboy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

          • BakedCatboy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            23 days ago

            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.

            • MostlyBlindGamer@rblind.comM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 days 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!”

    • sleepyplacebo@rblind.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 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. :(