Programmer Humor

Degrading the text to image, then OCRing it is a lossy (especially of semantic structure), more failure-prone waste of computing power than linking to source or just providing the text: it only poorly addresses 1 issue while adding extra steps. We still lose web connectivity, authenticity, searchability, fault tolerance while impairing usability & accessibility. I don't think linking to the comment or pasting text is an extraordinary effort compared to taking & clipping a screenshot, saving it to file, uploading it.

Since you didn't understand it, here's the full list of issues again: Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

• usability
  • we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
  • text search is unavailable
  • the system can't
    • reflow text to varied screen sizes
    • vary presentation (size, contrast)
    • vary modality (audio, braille)
• accessibility
  • semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc) is lost
  • some users can't read this due to lack of alt text
  • users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
  • systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
• web connectivity
  • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
  • we can't explore wider context of the original message
• authenticity: we don't know the image hasn't been tampered
• searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
• fault tolerance: no text fallback if
  • image breaks
  • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.