That said considering I was just lectured on civility for much less rudeness (I of course think I was not rude at all) in a politically charged thread where rudeness is sometimes expected I believe your opinion of the site is at odds with what is at least hoped for and my surprise at the tone given the circumstances was warranted.

However where rudeness is concerned I believe I can give better than I get if need be, and you're also quite rude so here are some points:

1. When I post a link to an MDN resource it is not because I think MDN is the standard place to get React specific information. That should be obvious to anyone on this site who claims technical expertise in Web matters, and you should have stopped with the patronizing let me tell you about ARIA spiel.

2. I believe a reading through my posting history on HN will show that I at least have enough familiarity with accessibility that you don't need go give me the Aria intro. Even if linking to a part of it on MDN wasn't a clue enough. (I could have linked to W3C but as introductory pieces they are much less successful than MDN content in my opinion)

3. The article was mainly about problems with doing accessibility in React, which I agree is problematic (for big SPAs at any rate) and live regions while helpful is in many ways more difficult to do right where accessibility is concerned than a normal HTML5/JavaScript application. Many people interested in React might read that article and say damn you can't do accessibility in React, because those accessibility experts couldn't do it. I made an offhand comment on a technology I have some experience with in React, and pointed to a resource on the technology trusting that anyone interested would either research matters further or at worst ask me for clarification ( which I would hate because the reason for writing a small offhand comment and providing a simple introductory link to a technology is because I don't have time for much more)