If it's between this and a perpetual logo, I'll take this any day.

I actually really like this approach. The action button isn't relevant in this context, and it doesn't occlude the content.

There's certainly situations where you wouldn't want this (ie if you're developing the app and you want to redesign starting from a screenshot), but for the average user I think this isn't overly hostile. I understand that people are dogmatically opposed to intent being modified, but I think you need to balance nuance. I actually enjoy having an attributable source in shared elements, and I think this is a low-impact way of achieving that.

▲

blauditore 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I actually hate that apps are allowed to blank out content on screenshots, and this can't be disabled. There are apps completely mis-using it, e.g. mobile payment apps which hardly show any sensitive data in most cases, but now I can't share e.g. infos on screen with someone else easily.

It's a classic case of someone discovering a feature and thinking "hell yeah, so much security" without understanding or caring about UX impications.

I've yet to see someone saying "oh, I'm so glad my screenshot was blacked-out because I didn't realize I was in a banking app". It feels patronizing.

▲

TeMPOraL 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I've yet to see someone saying "oh, I'm so glad my screenshot was blacked-out because I didn't realize I was in a banking app". It feels patronizing.

Yes, this. Payment apps, government apps, IM communications.

The other day I almost rooted my phone in anger trying to get around this, before pausing and realizing that this would only cause even more problems with those apps, thanks to remote attestation "features".

My favorite recent case, I almost locked myself out of mobile government services when changing phones recently[0], and it would've made for a stellar bug report showing when "fail safe" design can easily become "fail deadly"[1], with UI view of access and invalidation history clearly showing the timeline of a problem... if only I could take a screenshot of it. But I can't, because "much sekhurity".

[0] - Well, it's not really that big of a deal. With government services, there's always a way back. Might involve walking to a local civil affairs office or, worst case, a police station or a notary, but there is a way back. Big cloud services, on the other hand...

[1] - Invalidating a certificate prior to issuing a new one sounds like a good security idea, but in the real world fails critically if the two operations aren't an atomic group. In my case, issuing a new certificate failed, and I ended up walking half a day with old one invalidated and not even knowing it.

	▲	fluoridation 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		On a similar note in terms of frustration, my bank ended up getting me to memorize my randomly-generated passwords twice because it blocked pasting. I guess it's to discourage writing them down in plaintext files, but I bet it just makes most people choose meaningful passwords.
	▲	Perz1val 10 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Then they deserve you taking a photo with a second phone

▲

subjectleft 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is strange how this spawned a 100+ comments discussion on HN.

	▲	TeMPOraL 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not about the logo. It's about abusing a platform feature that arguably shouldn't exist in the first place.

▲

pembrook 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

ramraj07 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Consider the possibility that many HN users, who likely also constantly ask why mice are needed when vim/Emacs exist, are not the users who mostly use regular apps.

▲

computably 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Uh, no? I highly doubt that a non-occluding watermark on screenshots is even in the top 100 gripes most people have with X. And I don't use either platform. If anything your argument is an accusation of bias without any discussion of merits.

▲

Petersipoi 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure why you think anyone is suggesting that non-occluding watermarks are a gripe people have with X.

GP is saying that BS gets a pass where X would not for a user hostile action.

▲

saghm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From reading through a lot of comments on this thread, I'm honestly struggling to notice any super obvious pattern or bias other than the amount that people care about how screenshots work compared to the average person is a lot.

▲

irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, the dead comment really cements the bias of hn despite what people claim.

I don’t use either platform, I have no interest in the debate. As an outsider looking in, the bias has been proven.

Not that it matters much, I am left-of-center generally speaking.

▲

saghm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this says a whole lot about the direction of people's political views here as much as there being a general disdain for arbitrary claims of political bias that aren't based on any discernible evidence. I feel pretty confident that if I jumped into a random thread about some feature in the Brave browser and accused someone of defending it only because they agreed with Brendan Eich on Prop 8, I would get flagged too.

▲

alex1138 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

re: dead, I agree. I'm so tired of flags killing discussion. This site is highly regimented

What I want, as someone who vaguely leaned left and has gotten... less so, since certain revelations, are platforms that work. Where you can't just get booted off for things that are not-boot-off-worthy (sorry. wording sucks). In that view, Bluesky is something I'm interested in as a protocol. It should be something the Left and Right can both use, regardless of the people it tends to attract

▲

zapzupnz an hour ago | parent [-]

From your profile:

> "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." = censorship. Unaccountable [flag] = censorship.

> Mass un-elaborated on downvoting = censorship; needing 500 karma to downvote = censorship.

> Turn on showdead in your profile and see for yourself what people are "allowed" to comment vs what they're not. Userbase = mendacious pricks.

Apparently everything is censorship and everybody else is a prick. It's always someone else's fault. There's never responsibility taken for mean-spiritedness or rule violations.

Ever considered that if this is the hill you're dying on, your takes are just terrible and getting flagged is just this site's natural selection?

No, it's everyone else who is wrong? OK then.

I mean, the dead comment in this one is dead because of: "You're just defending Bluesky because you're on the same team politically" which is an unnecessarily unkind, snarky, uncurious way to communicate. That last paragraph was unnecessary but it tainted the entire post.

From the site rules:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Don't be curmudgeonly.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

But, of course, it's everybody else's problem, never yours, never the owner of the dead comment.

	▲	alex1138 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're not wrong and I do think that specific dead comment is dead for a reason. I just get a bit bristly when I do see legitimate comments buried under flags