I think I know the article you're talking about (topic was relationship between LGBT+ and disabilities), because I did read it and meant to comment (it got removed before I could get my thoughts together).
My comment was going to be about how I don't think dev.to is the place for that article. You also didn't come off as bad/rude/ignorant, but drawing parallels between queerness and disability rarely comes off as a positive thing (not long ago, queerness was considered a disability). I did also dig into the study you linked. I would call it a little outdated, and I couldn't see how it has anything to do with development or accessibility. In some spots of your article, it felt like you were trying to understand why there seemed to be a link. Trying to understand the why of one's queerness often makes us queer folks feel scrutinized and different in a bad way.
To circle back to this article's big question - should that article have been posted, and if so, where? Like I said, it wasn't a bad or ignorant article necessarily (I wouldn't flag it, but I wouldn't give it a 'like'), but it wasn't posted on the right platform. Perhaps Medium or a private blog would have been better; maybe a forum if you're looking for more discussion on the topic.
Accessibility talk and rants are still more than welcome on dev.to, but I can understand why admins took that post down.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
You see the problem is the reasoning behind the post being removed. Had you had chance to express this comment I could easily have addressed those issues you had with the article.
It is a very important relationship to understand for people who work in the AI field.
We have instances of AI making decisions on job applications, we have AI predicting patterns in society and making decisions on the future of distributing benefits etc. Understanding these relationships is an essential part of removing bias for the training data due to societal inequalities.
I originally had a section on this but as the discussion was on why the relationship exists, something essential to the work I am doing, I felt it took the conversation towards another topic.
Given your comment I would have been inclined to reintroduce that section.
I can agree on the language of the study being outdated, which I did my best to address, but the strong (P > 0.001) relationship is important.
Now, yet again, if you had been able to post your comment I could have had chance to reflect and adjust the article or have a dialog with you and clarify.
If the reasoning behind the removal of the article has been expressed like that, I would also had chance to defend the position of the article.
Ultimately you might have persuaded me that the article was not appropriate and I would have removed it of my own free will. All of these things would have been productive.
But the issue is that it just got deleted, the reasoning behind it was a very tenuous link to the CoC "protecting people" and there have been articles that I felt were equally contentious posted to the site that did (directly) contravene the CoC that were allowed to continue.
Anyway, the outcome is the same, I still need a different medium to post to on the things that actually matter, the tough questions that nobody wants to address in tech.
Finally you saying the accessibility rants are welcome is comforting, but I raised that point and it was not addressed.
I also do not have a clear "line" of what is considered acceptable, in 3 articles time my rant is "Your hiring practices are draconian" and some of the stuff that needs to be said in that article is bound to be offensive to the few soft touches and that is the point, offence and protection are two different things, deleting articles that may cause offence but are evidentially not trying to insight hatred or aggressions does not protect people, instead it just stops us moving forward and educating / learning from each other.
The whole approach was wrong, yours is far better.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
I just want to say an additional thank you for your comment, it allowed me to reflect on the tone of this article and correct for my anger directed at the team that was unnecessary.
I'm glad I could add to the conversation in a constructive way. Hopefully the admins have an eye on this thread and are thinking of possibly adding clarification/nuance to CoC, or perhaps an improved appeals process.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think I know the article you're talking about (topic was relationship between LGBT+ and disabilities), because I did read it and meant to comment (it got removed before I could get my thoughts together).
My comment was going to be about how I don't think dev.to is the place for that article. You also didn't come off as bad/rude/ignorant, but drawing parallels between queerness and disability rarely comes off as a positive thing (not long ago, queerness was considered a disability). I did also dig into the study you linked. I would call it a little outdated, and I couldn't see how it has anything to do with development or accessibility. In some spots of your article, it felt like you were trying to understand why there seemed to be a link. Trying to understand the why of one's queerness often makes us queer folks feel scrutinized and different in a bad way.
To circle back to this article's big question - should that article have been posted, and if so, where? Like I said, it wasn't a bad or ignorant article necessarily (I wouldn't flag it, but I wouldn't give it a 'like'), but it wasn't posted on the right platform. Perhaps Medium or a private blog would have been better; maybe a forum if you're looking for more discussion on the topic.
Accessibility talk and rants are still more than welcome on dev.to, but I can understand why admins took that post down.
You see the problem is the reasoning behind the post being removed. Had you had chance to express this comment I could easily have addressed those issues you had with the article.
It is a very important relationship to understand for people who work in the AI field.
We have instances of AI making decisions on job applications, we have AI predicting patterns in society and making decisions on the future of distributing benefits etc. Understanding these relationships is an essential part of removing bias for the training data due to societal inequalities.
I originally had a section on this but as the discussion was on why the relationship exists, something essential to the work I am doing, I felt it took the conversation towards another topic.
Given your comment I would have been inclined to reintroduce that section.
I can agree on the language of the study being outdated, which I did my best to address, but the strong (P > 0.001) relationship is important.
Now, yet again, if you had been able to post your comment I could have had chance to reflect and adjust the article or have a dialog with you and clarify.
If the reasoning behind the removal of the article has been expressed like that, I would also had chance to defend the position of the article.
Ultimately you might have persuaded me that the article was not appropriate and I would have removed it of my own free will. All of these things would have been productive.
But the issue is that it just got deleted, the reasoning behind it was a very tenuous link to the CoC "protecting people" and there have been articles that I felt were equally contentious posted to the site that did (directly) contravene the CoC that were allowed to continue.
Anyway, the outcome is the same, I still need a different medium to post to on the things that actually matter, the tough questions that nobody wants to address in tech.
Finally you saying the accessibility rants are welcome is comforting, but I raised that point and it was not addressed.
I also do not have a clear "line" of what is considered acceptable, in 3 articles time my rant is "Your hiring practices are draconian" and some of the stuff that needs to be said in that article is bound to be offensive to the few soft touches and that is the point, offence and protection are two different things, deleting articles that may cause offence but are evidentially not trying to insight hatred or aggressions does not protect people, instead it just stops us moving forward and educating / learning from each other.
The whole approach was wrong, yours is far better.
I just want to say an additional thank you for your comment, it allowed me to reflect on the tone of this article and correct for my anger directed at the team that was unnecessary.
I'm glad I could add to the conversation in a constructive way. Hopefully the admins have an eye on this thread and are thinking of possibly adding clarification/nuance to CoC, or perhaps an improved appeals process.