[borski]

And did not do anything malicious like remove the actual accessibility tones.

My point isn’t that they are some kind of Robin Hood, but that their actions don’t warrant anger, whereas the insecurity of a public system we rely on… should.

[googlryas]

How confident are you that you understand the requirements and design of accessibility systems to make that determination?

[borski]

Okay, you caught me. They’re evil.

[ai_slurp_bot]

They could just be "not thoughtful". I understand that you want to present the alternate viewpoint as absurd in order to bolster your own viewpoints, but this isn't reddit and you don't need to operate this way here

[borski]

No, please don’t misunderstand me. My goal wasn’t to mischaracterize your viewpoint, but to point out what I thought was a bad argument.

I do not need a PhD in Accessibility Studies to know that the same tones and messages were played as normal, plus the message from “Elon” or “Bill”

Even the hearing aid connectivity was left intact; my dad has one.

So no, I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the field. And I don’t think you need one for this discussion.

[ai_slurp_bot]

Can you look in the mirror for a second? You accuse me of a bad argument, but then this entire post is you just asserting your viewpoint as true, with basically just a "cmon, obviously!".

[borski]

That is not what I did. I provided multiple examples of how they left various accessibility features intact. In fact, I have not found one they hadn’t left intact.

Have you? If so, that would be a useful argument, and I would not respond in the same way.

Thus far, I have provided some semblance of evidence, and you have provided speculation, which is a bad argument.

I’m not saying I’m right. I might not be. I am saying your argument is not.

[Dylan16807]

They're not being as dismissive as "cmon, obviously!", and they're citing a pretty good piece of evidence (the tones still being there) while the other side is citing nothing.

The reddit crack is worse.