> Very legible to my eye.

Your retort is ableism. Some people have vision problems such as myself and I find reading the cute yet blocky font to be very uncomfortable. Thankfully, reader mode fixes this.

People should be able to express themselves how they like

bitmap fonts were the norm on computers for many years, and are still the default if you are running a computer in text mode (ie not running X11 or Wayland on linux / BSD), or using basically any low powered device with a screen. I was surprised to hear that anyone had trouble reading these, since they were just what fonts looked like on screens with certain constraints. I can understand that some people have become so used to high DPI displays and antialiased truetype fonts that they consider fonts with visible pixels ugly. If anything I would expect them to be easier to read with poor vision, since there is not much subtlty to miss out on.

English-only was also the norm for many years. First you make it work, then you make it accessible. But there's no reason to dial back on accessible formats once you have them.

the accessible format here is one in which reader mode works for those who prefer it

These fonts are low resolution and looks blurry unless I focus on it more.

Try to have this font and regular one next to each other (scroll to the the code snippets)

now start moving further away from the screen till you can barely read it.

Which one becomes unreadable first?

It isn't a bitmap font. It's Berkelium64, which is a re-work of a Commodore GUI font for GEOS with a fair amount added. It's proportional, rather than monospace, and it only looks like it is a bitmap.

* https://www.kreativekorp.com/software/fonts/c64/#berk

I switched the page over to unscii, and I found it to be a lot more legible.

Interesting TIL