It's a very old web standard, and choice of client is frankly a matter of will, not a limitation of capacity. Capable clients exist, especially lemmy interfaces (that have supported setting it over 2 years ago) readily accessible to anyone from the web browser by navigating to their instance. Deficient clients shouldn't guide content authoring practices anymore than Internet Explorer 4 should. If anything, client deficiencies should motivate rejection of deficient clients.

Moreover, spoiler (ie, the details & summary HTML element combination) is a newer feature with less mature accessibility (though still pretty mature) than alt text, though it's pretty good for a more structured text alternative.

I'd suggest complaining to the client developer to pressure compliance and choosing a better client. Deficient clients also perpetuate structural inequity.

@cannedtuna@lemmy.world your downvote is not a valid argument whereas this comment is, and it reinforces the earlier point that the toxic culture at lemmy can't stand valid criticism of deficient choices entirely within their control to the detriment of their own community & the wider public.

Did you read it or understand it? Social media butchers & misrepresents the paradox, argument, and basic definition of (in)tolerance as used in political philosophy. Tolerance is acceptance that permits an objectionable position or practice despite considering it wrong. Intolerance is a rejection that doesn't permit, ie, literally prohibits. Here's the full passage partly quoted in the article

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses unjustified force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general "suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies" as long as rational argument & public opinion can still govern public choice.

The philosopher who articulated the paradox was defending an open society that protects intellectual freedom & open discourse, not arguing for a society to limit it. They were also talking about systems of government.

None of that pertains to a civil disagreement lacking imposition of force: by definition the person in disagreement is tolerant, so it's not a case of "tolerating the intolerant". The paradox doesn't apply.

Drawing attention to this font by denouncing it and giving it antagonistic appeal is not an effective way to make it go away, so I think OP is secretly promoting it and wants more of it.
Nice try, OP: we're onto your mind games.

Yes, edit post & fill the alt text field. Editing posts and setting alt text are standard features of lemmy web interfaces accessed by web browser.

Those downvotes are part of why lemmy has a toxic culture: hostility to web accessibility and basic decency that perpetuates structural inequity. Bluesky and other parts of the fediverse like mastodon are better about promoting web accessibility. Web accessibility is a tangible matter of fairness, equal access, and decency we can all directly provide or deny.

While the rollback of post Civil War reconstruction and tolerance of violent segregationists is definitely an instance of "tolerance of the intolerant", you should read the article and source material it's quoting more closely, because you're contradicting the entire argument they're making. Here's the quoted passage again, but in full

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

As usual in political philosophy, the definition of intolerance is stricter and includes an element of rejection by force or imposition. From the passage, the type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general "suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies" as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

In that discourse where the philosopher is arguing that a free, open inquiry and rational argument is crucial to an open society, they unsurprising aren't arguing for the suppression of exclusionary opinions. They're arguing for a system of governance that protects freedom of individuals to debate (and denounce) each other.

So, tolerating segregationist terrorists in the post Civil War is a case of "extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant" as mentioned in the paradox. In contrast, a disagreement with someone who is not imposing their beliefs is not, and the paradox has no bearing.

Paradox of tolerance has no bearing on disagreements lacking imposition, and is used to defend open discourse, not argue against it.

Good job on not confusing corpocracy & corporatism.
People often miss plutocracy & kleptocracy.

checks alt text

(nothing)

This image needs a text alternative, though: the image's text content is unperceivable to the sight-impaired, for examples, so the post isn't web accessible.
It violates WCAG guideline

Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

As a consequence, it's also unsearchable by the hidden text content, which impairs usability for everyone.

While I would love that, the more moderate republicans who argued to impeach & convict Trump last time were ousted, so that leaves the Trumpiest core to work with. GOP shittiness & general hostility to the government working in any sense for the American people can't be underestimated. Plus, convicting Trump results in Vance replacing him.

I think some highly guarded optimism is warranted. Blocking hideous legislation and Trump appointments isn't too bad of a check if they're unable to pull off anything better.

See? No serious alternative.

What part of what you wrote contradicts anything written about democracy? The destruction & abuses you list could be far worse in governments with unchecked power.

Democracy isn't a magic salve that instantly cures everything it touches. Liberal democratic institutions permit reforms through a nonviolent, deliberative process to address everything you stated. To check abuses of power that could end democratic, open society, they also limit government capacity to unilaterally impose swift, sweeping changes. The institution trades sweeping state power that's riskier to abuse for more limited, checked, deliberative state power likelier to sustain the democratic system. You don't get democratic reforms without that slow, power-constrained work to protect the system.

All that money the obscenely wealthy dumped into the elections didn't get the results they paid for. Lack of action according to your timetable isn't legal immunity.

While your criticism gripes about the problems we can observe, no one is discounting them. We are criticizing your failures to consider all the problems we can't observe (because the system of limited government avoided them) and the strength of nonviolent, popular reform.

Your criticism looks like just griping that doesn't seriously weigh the tradeoffs, which is fine to commiserate, but not a rational basis to weigh alternative systems of government.

A democracy can change those rules & technicalities, it just takes time & popular will.

As argued by the same person who articulated the paradox of tolerance (widely distorted on social media), an overlooked strength of liberal democracy is the institutional framework (driven by competitive choices of the people open to rational debate) to institute reform without violence. To check abuses of power by the state, the people need to sustain such institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments. They argued that strict limits on the power of the state limit bad or incompetent rulers from doing too much damage (eg, damage that outright ends a democratic, open society). Those limits on government with Democrats in legislative power are also why MAGA control of the legislature and executive hasn't yet prevented elections and we don't have to fight frequent revolutions to take back control.

Democracy can reform itself nonviolently, presidents can be prosecuted when they leave office, and you're not suggesting a serious alternative, just grief lacking nuance.

Not how that works: without supermajorities in the legislature to override a veto or convict an impeachment, the president can still block all legislation.

This is among one of many techniques presented at the WCAG site you linked. You putting text in a top level comment would seem to me to satisfy this, at least in intent.

Not in the slightest: the guideline falls under Principle 1 – Perceivable

Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

as Guideline 1.1 – Text Alternatives

Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

The sight-impaired user is unable to perceive the text content hidden in the image at the post listing level that the sighted user can perceive. Your suggested text alternative is simply not there to display at the post listing level. Your suggested execution of the technique fails its test

1. Remove, hide, or mask the non-text content
2. Display the long description
3. Check that the long description conveys the same information conveyed by the non-text content.

since we can't display a description absent from the page. Your nonsolution misapplies the technique & is not a credible text alternative.

Imagine opening every post to seek among an unsorted mass of comments a comment we can't seriously expect to exist providing a text alternative not written by the author & of questionable integrity: the user has no incentive to take that additional effort for a post that already violates web accessibility. They may not even be aware a post needs a text alternative. That is not equivalent to the experience of a user who can read the image.

The best solution is not to use any web accessibility technique: actual text doesn't need it. Sharing it as an image was gratuitous & unnecessary. The post could have been proper text with the same bolding & line breaks.

to offer and make accomodations to the best extent possible

which your nonsolution here definitely is not: the post remains inaccessible. That is not due to a limitation of possibility: it's due to a failure of will or execution. As originally stated, posting proper text or setting alt text is possible.

A separate comment only gives the commenter an unfounded sense of accomplishment, when they're only enabling the posters to continue violating web accessibility without any pressure to correct themselves. Structurally prolonging dysfunction that way is the opposite of helpful.

Because that's not a solution: the post remains inaccessible. Unless you edit the post, demanding they fix it is the only solution.

I see stating the obvious struck a nerve for the downvoters, so let me dumb it down for the unfortunate ilk unable to grasp the obvious: y'all full of shit. You think someone scrolling through posts the same as you is going to notice a text alternative hidden away in some comment on some other page? You expect them to open every post unlike you for something that likely won't even be there? That's not equivalent in the slightest. Shit's daft as fuck: keep dreaming.

Now examine critically the substance of the other commenter's actions. While the comment is effective at drawing upvotes, is it actually effective at the main outcome of doing anything meaningful for accessibility as they purport? No, the comment doesn't appear to anyone scrolling through posts. Tellingly, the community is simply rewarding self-indulgent ploys to gain upvotes that do nothing for accessibility while condemning meaningful answers to actually solve it. That's quite damning.

It indicates a toxic community that cares more about indulging community narcissism than acting on their purpose directly within their capacity right here to address an issue in their control. A real progressive would care enough about equal access to look up & determine the truth on the matter, so they can pursue and promote real answers instead of empty gestures that don't meaningfully address inaccessible content. The placebo they pretend works stops them from developing real cures.

In sum, some lemmy communities in particular are toxic & hostile to web accessibility in ways we don't find in bluesky and other parts of the fediverse such as mastodon where web accessibility is common practice.

Back to the point, here's an introduction to web accessibility that you seem to sorely need. You can also read the technical guideline while you're at it. However, your nonsolution is an unhelpful illusion that diverts people from pursuing credible solutions.