Just FYI, you can touch once in the URL bar to set focus to it (the whole URL will be selected), then touch and hold down on the keyboard (which will then act like a desktop touchpad) to move the cursor around to edit the URL.
I find this handy, though it took me a while to get used to it.
It's funny what the final piece of straw is that breaks peoples' metaphorical camels' backs.
Still, better it breaks and people make the move to greener pastures — hopefully Firefox rather than Chrome-with-even-more-questionable-ethics … I don't remember the name, something like Courageous or Fearless or something like that.
(Poor camels, though)
For me, it was their removal a few years ago of the option to use the Backspace key to go back to the previous page.
The comment was entirely reasonable apart from the (accidental?) misuse of the TLA. But it also was anti-management and anti-talker, so lots of parasites here would have downvoted it anyway.
Uh, what? It’s changing the UI to hide parts of the URL.
Look, I’d prefer it the other way too, but we have to choose the right words. The thought process shouldn’t be “I’m mad, what else makes me really mad like this? Oh yeah social justice workers. This UI change is therefore like social justice work.”
EDIT: I was clearly disagreeing with the parent badmouthing SJWs wrt accessibility...
"Pushing for accessibility" is a pejorative now? What in the world is going on in this thread?
The parent's point is that someone who would self-identify or otherwise be described as SWJ would more likely push for greater accessibility to a fault rather than reduce it for aesthetic reasons. The attack on “SJWs” in the grandparent is misguided because it misunderstands their motivations so completely that it’s clear that the term is just meant as “people I vaguely don’t like and I feel have it out for me somehow.”
It feels like someone printed out a website to a PDF and decided that was good enough to serve!
> I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense
“SJW” must have a meaning I’m not familiar with, because Social Justice Warriors would be pro-accessibility, not anti.
https://9to5google.com/2020/06/12/google-android-chrome-blac...
Idiocy would be an anecdote my father told me in the mid-90s about his workplace trying to implement the same spirit with a naïve global search-and-replace, leading very quickly to a company-wide invitation to an “African-American tie dinner”.
But even that isn’t anti-accessibility.
Without mentioning other connotations, IMHO the rise of computers have in places supported discriminating (ie. 0 vs 1) culture, because that is simply what computers can do best. If just renaming terms changes changes this can in fact be doubted.
I am actually not so happy about the consequences of hiding URLs to people. This will also change how we will perceive the Internet but IMHO not for the good. And here the motivations are not as clearly communicated here. It might actually hide some of the beautiful heterogenity and complexity of the Internet to the average user also with unforeseeable consequences.
Or maybe offended by the fact that most pages on the web have light/white theme?
This is getting ridiculous (together with github ditching the name "master" - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312), maybe it is the result of too much working from home recently - people create problems where there are none.
What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.
But “blacklist” is entirely different. “Blacklist” uses a color term to describe the acceptability of something. It relates a value judgment to a color. I don’t know the history of the term, but I can easily see how it could be at least somewhat offensive.
None of this is to say that the term “blacklist” is problematic or should be discouraged, but your argument about it doesn’t hold water.
I don't know how others feel about it, for me connecting blacklist to those is quite racist.
What would you say about Black Friday?
Or white Christmas?
Dark mode doesn't have negative connotations. A 'blacklist' is negative selection, as opposed to a 'whitelist' which is positive selection. I didn't even realise this until I came across, and, on reflection, I agree that this is a simple change in the right direction.
Because of its etymology and history [1] for starters:
n.
also black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. As a verb, from 1718. Related: Blacklisted; blacklisting. [32]
> Or maybe dark mode
Dark mode is not used in a negative way like "blacklist" or "blackballed". And it accurately describes exactly what happens. Unlike "blacklist" which is an inaccurate idiom that relies on "black" being used to mean "bad". So no, I doubt "dark mode" would offend anyone.
> Why would anyone be offended
You could start by learning about microagressions [2]. This one covers "blacklist" specifically. And was presented by a black man if that helps you with credibility.
> This is getting ridiculous
I agree that systemic racism has gone on for far too long. Even conservative four star US generals are starting to say we need big changes in society.
> What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.
You are wrong. Just as one small counter-example the presentation I already cited that discusses "blacklist" was made by a black man. Anecdotal, but my black friends have sent me many resources recently about how to become a better anti-racist. Our diversity initiative at my current client is being lead by a black employee. This is coming from oppressed black people who have been very visibly protesting injustice for over two weeks now for the most recent injustice. And for decades actually for anyone who has been listening.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/
[2] https://www.appic.org/Portals/0/2018%20Conference/APPIC%2020...
The "black" is not racial but metaphorical, as in "the absence if light". The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics. Light being good and darkness being bad is part of most (all?) monotheistic culture. To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive. It's overkill, especially when there are more pressing reforms to pursue.
There's a nice confluence where basically all parties win by eliminating "blacklist" from benign contexts, but the original violence is not racial at all. Religious and political, sure.
In case I am not clear, if we want to be on the side of education, accurate history, and truth, we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere. In this case, it's an entirely different form of tyrrany, violence, and bigotry, but we should be careful about appearing overzealous and under-informed.
> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics.
Both of these are an oversimplification that leaves out other context and other history.
The first recorded use of the term "blacklist" occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas.
> To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive.
That is a strawman. No one is suggesting to eliminate all historical uses of darkness meaning bad. What we are talking about is very specific: words that are very commonly used in a modern work setting, and that have clearer alternatives.
> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental.
It far too convenient that "black" continued to mean evil in the midst of widespread dehumanization and slavery for it to be purely accidental.
Consider also that the Latin word "niger" had many of the same figurative senses ("gloomy; unlucky; bad, wicked, malicious"). Another accident?
But if it were accidental - and I think that would be near impossible to prove - many microagressions are accidental.
> we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere
That's another strawman. Where was that assumption made? Besides the fact that much of modern Western history is racist.
Racism against black people in the US has survived for well over 200 years. Thanks much in part to lack of intention. Clearly, it's not enough to have absence of bad intentions. We tried that, and it is not working.
There is also this quora answer from an apparent Yale linguist specifically saying blacklist does not have racial origins, mentioning other phrases like "black sheep" that are only racial in inference, not especially in implication.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-blacklist-racist
I also disagree that microaggression can be accidental, though I do think reflexive actions can betray racial attitudes. But that lies typically in instinctive actions like purse-clutching, not in formation of artistic or other creative devices like Stevenson's black spot, Tolkein's Black Gate, or the various incarnations of "black swan".
To reiterate, I am actually fine getting rid of the term blacklist given it's very negative history, but it's a stretch, and counterproductive, to racialize the term. That sort of overreach plays into the hands of people like Trump, who are not afraid of portraying these movements as unhinged.
If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead.
I'll also add the problem is not imaginary. Microagressions are a well documented and well studied category of racism. You can find many studies with supporting evidence. While you might choose to critique the scientific rigour of existing studies, you would have to do that with your own counter evidence, and not with a dismissive "it's imaginary". You could start here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161982749...
Either way though, can't really go wrong with more descriptive/functional names.
That being said, let's not get into literal guilt-by-association accusations. If someone carries water for proto-fascists or otherwise has a negative worldview, just say that.
Being "adjacent" is often a good thing. A diplomat to a totalitarian country is voluntarily "tyrant adjacent" to pick an arbitrary example. Legitimate journalists (as opposed to propagandists) on the alt-right reporting beat would be likewise.
One day it's "jews" or "queers," the next it's "SJWs" and people who are just a little frustrated with modern discourse say "yeah!" and don't realize they're holding hands with an eager eugenicist. Pretty soon they've lost all their friends and have no idea how they got there, but now they don't seem to have anywhere else to go...
It's insidious. And now I have to wonder: would the person yelling about "SJWs" cheer as I'm marched into the gas chambers, or are they just frustrated about people who go overboard on Twitter? Probably the latter, but I can't really be sure. They don't even realize where they've positioned themselves.
edit:
>> "Being "adjacent" is often a good thing. A diplomat to a totalitarian country is voluntarily "tyrant adjacent" to pick an arbitrary example. Legitimate journalists (as opposed to propagandists) on the alt-right reporting beat would be likewise."
The diplomat and the journalist would know where they're positioned and be able to use that for their job. People who latch on to dogwhistles for unrelated frustrations typically do not and end up being used.
It's also worth noting that some folks bothered by social justice movements are bothered by the qualities they share with fascist ones: thought crime, lack of due process, blacklisting, doublespeak, etc.
It's possible actual allies againt oppression seem "evil adjacent" right now, but only because they aren't comfortable with fighting fire with fire, so to speak.
The use of the word "SJW" is the same kind of social singalling that you attempted to criticize. It's a cheap insult, counter-productive to the discussion, and trivializes the real work on social justice that is necessary for humanity to grow up and become a mature civilization.
I actually agree with the main point you're making, that there are people who superficially attach themselves to social causes for selfish reasons. I am also skeptical when I hear about "serving the public", it's become a meaningless catch phrase by for those who seek to gain a leadership position in society.
And it may be tangentially relevant, that Google hiding the full URL in their brower was done in the name of "improving user experiece", when in fact it's more likely for a self-serving purpose. But that's not "SJW", it's a dark pattern used by corporations and political groups, on whichever side of the artificial divide.
So, I just want to point out that the word has been defined by the media you consume, that there are strings being pulled by the "anti-SJW" side also. It's best to not use that word, otherwise you risk discrediting any valid points you're making.
The most obvious example of this recently must be the 'SJW' that went round on the underground spraying bleach on men who were 'man-spreading' that turned out to very probably be fake.
I feel like everyone needs to learn the 'sniff test' - for things that both agree and disagree with our world view.
There never has there been such a large and sophisticated effort to manipulate the the population by shaping the information that gets to us.
Alternatively, people can contribute to turn back that term into something neutral or complimentary. Protests, for instance, are a good opportunity to find people who can serve as role models.
In that context, I think the connection implied above might be that those pushing for this are infantilizing the end-users by choosing to hide the URL from/for them because they think the end-users can't/aren't good enough at deciding for themselves.
Social justice work definitely includes accessibility. If hiding the URL was about making the web more accessible to the visibly impaired or whatever, you’d have a point worth discussion. A tradeoff between making the web available to everyone and reducing friction for those who don’t need accessibility is a worthy topic to debate.
But this isn’t the case. Nobody is demanding that URLs be hidden for the benefit of inclusion.
Likewise, social justice work involves removing exclusionary and stereotyped language. But hiding the URL bar isn’t about that, either. Nobody is arguing that “http” has racist, classist, or sexist implications.
And if you’re trying to argue that “SJWs” is a blanket term for anyone you dislike, then you are falling into a terrible hole when it comes to both reasoning and constructive debate. Hanging baggage on other people for actions and objectives they do not pursue is deeply broken thinking.
Now to the good point in your comment:
What you speak to about “thought leadership” and “making a name for themselves” is something you find in every organization, and if I had to conjecture, I’d say that progressive people in tech are no more likely to be ambitious than conservatives, libertarians, or just plain people-trying-to-make-a-living.
Your argument, at its core, is about people who do things for their own personal gain at the expense of the product, the company, and the customers/users.
It’s a worthy point to explore, and I suggest that disentangling it from your feelings about progressive voices would improve your argument immensely.
There is no canonical source for living languages.
Dictionaries can only be historical references.
In other words, let the weeds grow with the wheat, and when it's time for harvest toss out all the weeds? Maybe. But if those weeds are going to make the whole place toxic better get rid of them asap.
They would be, except blind, simple-minded activism tends to have unintended consequences that make it a net negative for the cause.
What on Earth.
None of whom would know how to change a tyre or what a transistor is.
1. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
Congratulations on making everything about politics, even if it has zero to do with it.
Wtf is wrong with you people it's no longer 2016
_citation needed_
To be honest, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this entire subthread was mostly PR firm manufactured and designed to drown discussion and outrage about a topic Google knows is going to be bad for it.
A telltale sign of a manipulation campaign is when someone says something outrageous in a way that doesn't make sense and it gets pushed to the front of the discussion. Especially when that discussion will likely be bad for a major corporation. It's not a 100% accurate detector, but it works a lot better than being a rube.
There will be some VP of Product or Engineering buried deep in the bureaucracy who is pushing this, deciding with no evidence (or, worse, lots of evidence to the contrary; believe me this happens) that it is the "users who are wrong" [1].
It now takes something like 4 taps to get to the point where I can correct or otherwise edit the URL in my mobile browser (Safari) as I have to go through different layers where someone, somewhere has decided I can't possibly mean to edit the URL so I must be wanting to select the entire thing.
I'm sure this same "it's the users who are wrong" from a handful of key stakeholders that is pushing AMP. And for something that supposedly improves the mobile experience, it doesn't fit on my iPhone 11 screen and it's also disabled zoom. This is probably because I've changed the default zoom, something that gives me no end of problems but I can't control how bad my eyesight is and I don't need a company telling me I'm wrong for wanting to zoom. There is never an excuse to disable zoom on a browser and browser makers should remove the ability for sites to do this, period.
I used to love the simplicity and features of Chrome. I once relied a great deal on Chrome Sync. For years I've used a password manager so a lot of the need for that has gone away. Sometimes it's nice to be able to open a page I have open on another device but I can also live without this.
I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense to the point that yeah, I'm ready to ditch Chrome.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik