this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
496 points (94.0% liked)
Bluesky
1784 readers
11 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Where is the text of the actual review? I dont know about you but the only text I can see on that image is the word Muslim, nothing else. Maybe not getting the best quality image or something but it's still really hard to read.
(Edit)Nvmd the quality is better on the bluesky version, dunno what op/lemmy did here.
It's in the Blue Sky message when you click on it.
I felt it was important to provide the whole chain untouched.
Here is the Muslim one
People defending this review in the comments here is fucking crazy. Expected for reddit, but it's kinda sad that people here are moving on the same direction
what a fucking chad developer.
💖
I zoomed in and read carefully. Don't bother. He's calling it "woke", implying that his problem is just with Islam specifically.
Yeah i zoomed in, I think the quality got degraded by lemmy either on upload or download
Weird , looks fine on my end.
Must be client side then
Copy the link of the image. You see the bit at the end of the url that says
?format=webp? Change that to?format=png.Lemmy often doesn't show images in original quality unless specifically requested to.
Edit: which is fair, because the lossy webp is 51 kb vs 513 for the png. Compressed for longer, it could be a 265 kb lossless jxl though. Once Mozilla and Google finally add support (which is actually happening now!). It could also be a 322 kb lossless avif. All of these aren't max effort, just the effort that takes about 6 seconds on Image Toolbox on my phone
Lossily, avif > webp > mozjpeg > jxl > jpegli for this image, although I think this is just because jxl and jpegli use the same perpetual tuning method which must not favor dark areas. Which might be good for most images but certainly is terrible for this one. It certainly is much better at the bright areas. Mozjpeg vs jxl -> lossless webp (equivalent compressed size)
Note that all of the lossless formats would have been much smaller if the original screenshot in the mastodon post was lossless