←back to thread

CAPTCHAs are over (in ticketing)

(behind.pretix.eu)
204 points pabs3 | 5 comments | 25 May 25 00:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
landl0rd ◴[25 May 25 01:37 UTC] No.44084899[source]▶
I'd rather see bot resistance (important for everyone) and privacy (important for everyone) take precedence over accessibility (important for a small minority) and have laws change to reflect that.
replies(2): >>44084903 #>>44093382 #
1. singpolyma3 ◴[25 May 25 01:39 UTC] No.44084903[source]▶
I disagree that bot resistance is important to anyone, or even a reasonable goal for anyone at all. Bots are just users
replies(3): >>44084921 #>>44084993 #>>44088814 #
2. mikepurvis ◴[25 May 25 01:42 UTC] No.44084921[source]▶
Bots are not just users in the battle against spam.
replies(1): >>44090962 #
3. rnmg ◴[25 May 25 02:01 UTC] No.44084993[source]▶
Bots are users, but they aren't human users. I think it's fair to say that most web sites/apps value human users over bots (maybe that's wrong though?). But I think an argument can definitely be made the bot resistance is valuable/important to most people on the web.
4. landl0rd ◴[25 May 25 16:10 UTC] No.44088814[source]▶
Objectively a lack of bot-resistance can make the service unusable for everyone. Good examples include twitter, where interesting stuff gets flooded by spam DMs and indian payout farmers, and the mentioned ticketing example, where objectively a lack of resistance leads to rent-seeking middlemen scalping tickets.

Similarly a lack of privacy hurts everyone.

The question is basically "would you rather have an equally-shitty service for everyone in the name of egalitarianism or a good service for most?" This seems a really easy choice for me because I don't see egalitarianism/accessibility as a moral imperative.

5. singpolyma3 ◴[25 May 25 20:49 UTC] No.44090962[source]▶
Then you want antispam not antibot