zlacker

> If there's a script hash that shows up reliably in spam, and never shows up in ham, then you can auto-mark those posts as spam. [...] All this is fairly straightforward to code up, again, in a theoretical world in which operating systems expose information like whether events are emulated or not (today they don't).

And in a world that has zero outliers or unusual users. In reality, I guarantee my accessibility software would get flagged as emulated input (because it is) and marked as spam.

>>yjftsj+(OP)
Then maybe we can also take into account whether the emulated input comes from remotely attested assistive technology. Yes, this will have the effect of at least restricting third-party assistive technology, but we have to keep in mind what's best for the largest number of people (including disabled people who aren't hackers) in the big picture, rather than taking an absolutist stance on hacker freedom.

>>yjftsj+(OP)
Again, it's all chainable. If an app is being controlled by accessibility software, the identity of that software can show up in the RA, so readers can say "it's OK if this app is automated as long as it's by something on this community maintained list of genuine accessibility tools".

>>mwcamp+b8
That makes the tech far more expensive because you introduced useless overhead without gaining anything relevant.

You didn't protect non-tech savvy users at all, on the contrary, you introduced a point of failure for their devices. Some have customized ones which would need to be verified. Doesn't sound like a good idea at all.