Screen readers usually don't read the rendered screen. Here's a quick explanation of accessibility trees, accessibility APIs, events and speech queues.
Most screen readers never look at the rendered screen. Instead, they get information from the browser in two ways.
A treatment without those side effects could be invented. That’s why they’re side effects. A way to block AI that doesn’t also block screen readers is impossible to even invent. That’s why it’s not a side effect. It is impossible to do one without doing the other.
True story time: My mother had a brain tumour removed that would’ve killed her. A side effect of surgery was that she’s now blind in one eye. It would’ve been impossible to remove the tumour and save her without also damaging her eye because of where the tumour was. Was the doctors’ intention to blind her?
It is possible, at some future date, that a less invasive method (nanotechnology? Lasers? who cares.) could be invented for cases like your mother’s. It is not possible, at any future date, for a technology to block AI but not block screen readers. Because it can no more exist than you can have water that isn’t wet.
Of course there is. If you dump a bucket of water on your head, you intend to get wet. There is absolutely nothing else that could possibly happen. If you intend to block machines from reading your content, machines will be unable to read your content. Screen readers are machines. There is absolutely nothing else that could possibly happen.
If I’m on fire, I intend to not be on fire. Wetness is the side effect. For something to be a side effect and uninteded, it doesn’t matter if it’s inevitable.
A treatment without those side effects could be invented. That’s why they’re side effects. A way to block AI that doesn’t also block screen readers is impossible to even invent. That’s why it’s not a side effect. It is impossible to do one without doing the other.
True story time: My mother had a brain tumour removed that would’ve killed her. A side effect of surgery was that she’s now blind in one eye. It would’ve been impossible to remove the tumour and save her without also damaging her eye because of where the tumour was. Was the doctors’ intention to blind her?
It is possible, at some future date, that a less invasive method (nanotechnology? Lasers? who cares.) could be invented for cases like your mother’s. It is not possible, at any future date, for a technology to block AI but not block screen readers. Because it can no more exist than you can have water that isn’t wet.
I’m arguing with the notion that there is an intention.
Of course there is. If you dump a bucket of water on your head, you intend to get wet. There is absolutely nothing else that could possibly happen. If you intend to block machines from reading your content, machines will be unable to read your content. Screen readers are machines. There is absolutely nothing else that could possibly happen.
If I’m on fire, I intend to not be on fire. Wetness is the side effect. For something to be a side effect and uninteded, it doesn’t matter if it’s inevitable.
Have we really come to the point in society where people are incapable of understanding cause and effect? Apparently so.