Thursday, 5 September 2019


Image result for Free speechWhile UK voters are at odds over Brexit spare a thought for the deaf people relying on their own BSL output to make sense of what is going on.  

Apparently, only one 'UK' site really exists to inform them, and that is a travesty of free speech, abysmal moderation and wholesale manipulation of posts and people to promote just one view, that of the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union, and some smart-alec deafie claiming to know more than anyone else in the country.  There is no objection to any deafie producing a site with that in mind, but to suggest it is something else is a fraud and misinforming deaf people.

Posters using vlogs in BSL also not making their view accessible to other posters on the same site keeping ignorance 'in the family' I call it.   Using primarily English grammar and text approaches yet claiming this discriminates against deaf people, so, why are THEY doing it then?  The deaf cannot get involved in political or topical debates, they lack the knowledge,  they know their own area up to a point and what they need, but Brexit itself is a hugely complicated affair even to hearing people.  

If 650 MP's haven't a clue and 100s of Lawyers to advise,  what chance do the deaf have of following it all?  So it's just cut and paste from wherever and adding the moderators take on it, little or nothing at all from the 'deaf' view at all.  9 people talking to themselves mostly.  Just four moderators exist, all there to disrupt or oppose any post that challenges the site Remit/claim of free speech and accurate information without bias. Which is said to be a 'free and open forum' to inform deaf people about the issues of Brexit.  It's long since descended into name-calling and wholesale bans of people and edited out comments.

People who wanted to leave the European Union were called racists, liars, homophobic, stupid, uninformed, anti-migrants,  and worse who stuck to their guns.  The primary site owner is a well known deaf egotist who is 'always right' and everyone else is wrong because they are too stupid to understand the issues like he does, he and his cabal continue to post 'Truth' in a  format few BSL people will understand.

Site moderation on free speech surely demands moderators are without bias? not using their collective 'clout' to dive in when another moderator has lost the point or indeed the whole plot to then support it. It was pointed out day one you CANNOT establish a politically neutral site it has never existed anywhere. Debates that are pro, as well as con toward Brexit, are bombarded with 'Fact' (which is just 'opinion' taken from other sites online), primarily the sites that support the remain in Europe view.  There is no Deaf site in the united kingdom putting balance, and no hearing ones either.  UK Media is completely discredited it's all viewed pretty much bias or fake.

Recently, some commentators have started to counter poor moderation and the bias being exhibited.  Moderators are insisting 'we have a view too', they are perfectly entitled to one, but, holding the privileged position of being able to ban and block input, they abuse that to promote those views and use them to dispute other people's, this suggests they should NOT be moderators.  Are deaf being served?  They are treated as the vulnerable and uninformed they are and relying on 'more able' deaf to inform them, who in turn are using quite sophisticated means to ensure only one message is getting through even if it means depriving them of the signed or text means to follow or posting technical details/statistics deaf can't follow (Or the moderators if their comments are anything to go by)..

They abuse the very deaf people they claim to be trying to inform.  Site members have started to realise what is going on and started blocking the site moderators themselves, who it is felt are abusing moderation power, this has obviously angered them stating anyone that does gets removed.  Recently members have started blocking each other instead, I don't like your view so I block myself being able to see it.  The online equivalent of rose coloured glass wearing.  You get a shed load of deaf members in little islands of ignorance talking to themselves.  I can only see what I agree with so that's OK.  This is how deaf 'democracy' works, all for one or all for the clique.  Every put down by the mod gets plaudits from their mates and fellow moderators.  

About the sole plus of this site is that all these biased agitators are confined to that site, (none could survive anywhere else).  ATR would urge we ensure these idiots never get a chance outside their closed and ridiculous facade of a  site to get anyone else to listen to them.  There is no such thing as a 'neutral' forum, by definition it has to allow those who don't agree to provide balance, and they aren't doing that.  Perhaps they could learn from the BSL mafioso who tried a blog UK Aggregate? that vanished in weeks because they tried blocking everyone they didn't like?   Or those who lined up to bring down the RNID charity forum?  Who set out to deny access to other deaf people even if it meant their support would be affected?

Hell hath no fury than these BSL scorned apparently, but clearly, these are able deaf who DON'T rely on BSL and are well educated also.   They become big fish in minor 'Deaf' pools deluded by their own fantasies but sadly running many 'Deaf' awareness campaigns that cannot succeed.  It's true what they say, we just don't have the people to move the deaf community forward and we DON'T want people like these doing it either.

10 Reasons why why lip-reading fails

Image result for read my lips
From the Hard of Hearing media...

(1) "Subtitles have made me lazy. I used to be good reading lips. Now I find myself struggling. Got a job and need that skill and its too late." 

(2) "Why oh why don’t people come with subtitles?"

(3) "Lip-reading is a skill. Subtitles require reading like a book. So basically it depends on your literacy."

(4) "Prior to subtitling/texting, my lip-reading was far better than it is now, it's probably why these deaf signing people don't want it on their vlogs, people won't watch the sign then, unfortunately this kills their own awareness then because others have no 'In' to what they are saying, they are demanding access but cannot cope with the equal provision of it."

(5) "Texting on phones usually mean more effective contact but no impetus to lip read or even meet up to do that. I believe Hard of Hearing have opted for text as their primary communication alternative, you cannot lip-read the TV or Face-Time anyway."

(6) "Japan developed a subtitled radio set because HoH didn't want to sign." 

(7) "Most readers here rely almost totally on text/titles, their and my desire mostly, is to have effective, unobtrusive, and real-time access to speech to TEXT, there is no demand from us for speech to be lip-spoken is there?"

(8) "The skill isn't taught properly that's why,  its random, too hard, most students are older people who need one on one intensive help, and classes don't provide that, such skills almost totally rely on having enough useful hearing, it's pointless mainly given the skill is to enable without it. Soon as the hearing goes so does the skill again."

(9) "People are poor speakers, you can't read most at all, you are either a good guesser or a complete idiot, I cannot understand people who try to bluff it...I don't get embarrassed asking them to write it own or use text on the phones they carry, everyone has one now not a problem really, pride doesn't create awareness it is an obstacle to it.  I think it  a myth people won't accommodate us, the reality is we lack the confidence to ask."

(10)  "There is no lip-speaking support or back up, so it's pointless..."

Captioning/Transcripts for your podcasts.

If you care nothing about accessibility and take only one thing from this episode, please let it be that shitty transcripts will not help your website’s SEO. 

Transcripts of podcast episodes are an accessibility feature, not an SEO benefit. Captioning is added to the audio (and video) elements of your digital content so that people can consume those elements with their eyes instead of (or in some cases in addition to) their ears. But do I mean a literal, 100% accurate transcription? Well… that depends. My processes is (or has been since June) to taking this 10-minute audio monologue and turning it into a (in this case) 1,323 word written representation of the topic. 

Why? Because it reads better than a literal word-for-word transcript, which you can read here. So that’s fine (I think?) for a short show like this. But longer shows? Not so much, so I’m changing the advice I give to all of my clients. While it’s still important to create a well-crafted “landing page” for each episode, complete with charts, graphs, and other visual components to really make a piece of worthy digital content, that’s not enough. That's not sufficient for servicing the needs of the hearing impaired. In most cases, the audio of your episode and the contents of this new landing page, another digital asset, are vastly different. If that’s the case for you, then you need to include a transcript of the actual audio episode. 

Yes, that means more work for you. Sorry? Tomorrow I’m going to get into some technologies and tools to help you make your audio content more accessible. Speaking of accessibility, The purpose of this show is to make podcasting better, not just easier.

ATR:  Great, I think your grammar is atrocious but...

AVT: Learning to Listen.

Please come to the UK and start in Westminster... We have hearing people there who never listen or have that ability.