4 ms·

Are you surprised? He's got a product which he believes has no value to blind people and a record of exactly zero people calling to complain, but he's getting s

by enlyth 7y ago

Are you surprised? He's got a product which he believes has no value to blind people and a record of exactly zero people calling to complain, but he's getting shit on by the a11y brigade anyway. I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. It's very easy to tell others to do something a certain way with a condescending tone from behind your screen if you've got no stakes and don't have to do any of the work involved.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
> It's very easy to tell others to do something a certain way with a condescending tone from behind your screen if you've got no stakes and don't have to do any of the work involved. Isn't this exactly what you're doing here, condescendingly name-calling people and dismissing their opinions?
Frondo 7y ago
It is entirely possible a blind person would buy a painting or a piece of artistic jewelry as a gift for a friend or family member; they may even buy one, sight unseen, to decorate their apartment or body for the enjoyment of their sighted friends.
couchand 7y ago
> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. Fortunately, in America we don't believe discrimination is acceptable, and we've codified that principle in the law.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Ha. The ADA has been put into law, yes. The result was reduced employment opportunities for disabled people. Because the cost of conforming to the law is prohibitive. Apparently, in America, its more important to appear to be virtuous than to actually do good. The law of unintended consequences.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    Can you source your claim? I am genuinely interested in reading it.
    - esyir 7y ago
      As with most research, take multiple sources. A quick survey showed this (admittedly rather old paper), but it does show the immediate effect: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_... >On average over the post-ADA period, employment of men with disabilities was 7.2 percentage points lower than before the act was passed. In addition, wages of disabled men did not change with the passage of the ADA. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Jolls_497.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/J... This one is long, and they do mention some positive impact on education later. Didn't read that far though. >while relative disabled employment declined significantly just after the ADA’s enactment in states in which these provisions were a substantial innovation relative to the pre-ADA state-level employment discrimination regime, relative disabled employment was stable in states with ADA-like employment discrimination regimes in place prior to the ADA’s enactment Non-exhaustive search, but the data seems to indicate that ADA reduced employment for the disabled shortly after inception. I'm not certain on the longer term effects (those are also much more annoying to model here).
      - foldr 7y ago
        The negative effects on employment were a blip: https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        It's great to think that the ADA damage was short-lived. But rather than a 'blip', it lasted 'through the 1990s' by that reference (thanks!) which cut out the prime earning years of a whole generation of disabled people. Again, Law of Unintended Consequences.
- curryst 7y ago
  Of course we do, we allow and encourage discrimination on a number of fronts. The most obvious is discrimination based on socioeconomic status; we have a whole host of "luxury" products that are kept inaccessible to lower income people so they can serve as a status symbol. Education is another lateral that is generally viewed as acceptable for discrimination (i.e. jobs that require a particular degree). Financial, employment and criminal histories are all also acceptable to discriminate based on. It's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to rent an apartment because they have a criminal history, or a poor financial or employment history. It's also acceptable for American Express to not issue black cards to people who don't make a million dollars a year. We have codified some traits that we do not allow discrimination based on, but generally speaking, discrimination is acceptable. Unless you change the general definition of "discrimination" to the legal one, which would seem to make the argument circular (i.e. we have banned discrimination where discrimination is the things we have banned).
ryandrake 7y ago
> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. You might believe it, but the law apparently says otherwise. It’s ok to disagree with laws while still complying with them, and if you’re so passionate about it... it’s ok to work to change them. I might believe that my healthcare business shouldn’t have to comply with HIPPA but if I don’t comply I should expect to be sued. I might believe my online store shouldn’t need to be PCI compliant and that it’s unfair, but if I don’t imply I should expect to pay for it. Through (imperfect) representative democracy, the public has decided that being sloppy with health information, improperly protecting credit card information, and providing access to your business to disabled people are important enough to enforce via the law. It doesn’t really matter what the business owner’s beliefs are at that point. Anyone who really thinks it’s so important to deny blind people equal access to their web site is free to run for Congress or find a politician who agrees with them to vote for.

by enlyth 7y ago

CathedralBorrow 7y ago

> It's very easy to tell others to do something a certain way with a condescending tone from behind your screen if you've got no stakes and don't have to do any of the work involved. Isn't this exactly what you're doing here, condescendingly name-calling people and dismissing their opinions?

Frondo 7y ago

It is entirely possible a blind person would buy a painting or a piece of artistic jewelry as a gift for a friend or family member; they may even buy one, sight unseen, to decorate their apartment or body for the enjoyment of their sighted friends.

couchand 7y ago

> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. Fortunately, in America we don't believe discrimination is acceptable, and we've codified that principle in the law.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Ha. The ADA has been put into law, yes. The result was reduced employment opportunities for disabled people. Because the cost of conforming to the law is prohibitive. Apparently, in America, its more important to appear to be virtuous than to actually do good. The law of unintended consequences.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  Can you source your claim? I am genuinely interested in reading it.
  - esyir 7y ago
    As with most research, take multiple sources. A quick survey showed this (admittedly rather old paper), but it does show the immediate effect: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_... >On average over the post-ADA period, employment of men with disabilities was 7.2 percentage points lower than before the act was passed. In addition, wages of disabled men did not change with the passage of the ADA. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Jolls_497.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/J... This one is long, and they do mention some positive impact on education later. Didn't read that far though. >while relative disabled employment declined significantly just after the ADA’s enactment in states in which these provisions were a substantial innovation relative to the pre-ADA state-level employment discrimination regime, relative disabled employment was stable in states with ADA-like employment discrimination regimes in place prior to the ADA’s enactment Non-exhaustive search, but the data seems to indicate that ADA reduced employment for the disabled shortly after inception. I'm not certain on the longer term effects (those are also much more annoying to model here).
    - foldr 7y ago
      The negative effects on employment were a blip: https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        It's great to think that the ADA damage was short-lived. But rather than a 'blip', it lasted 'through the 1990s' by that reference (thanks!) which cut out the prime earning years of a whole generation of disabled people. Again, Law of Unintended Consequences.
curryst 7y ago
Of course we do, we allow and encourage discrimination on a number of fronts. The most obvious is discrimination based on socioeconomic status; we have a whole host of "luxury" products that are kept inaccessible to lower income people so they can serve as a status symbol. Education is another lateral that is generally viewed as acceptable for discrimination (i.e. jobs that require a particular degree). Financial, employment and criminal histories are all also acceptable to discriminate based on. It's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to rent an apartment because they have a criminal history, or a poor financial or employment history. It's also acceptable for American Express to not issue black cards to people who don't make a million dollars a year. We have codified some traits that we do not allow discrimination based on, but generally speaking, discrimination is acceptable. Unless you change the general definition of "discrimination" to the legal one, which would seem to make the argument circular (i.e. we have banned discrimination where discrimination is the things we have banned).

ryandrake 7y ago

> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. You might believe it, but the law apparently says otherwise. It’s ok to disagree with laws while still complying with them, and if you’re so passionate about it... it’s ok to work to change them. I might believe that my healthcare business shouldn’t have to comply with HIPPA but if I don’t comply I should expect to be sued. I might believe my online store shouldn’t need to be PCI compliant and that it’s unfair, but if I don’t imply I should expect to pay for it. Through (imperfect) representative democracy, the public has decided that being sloppy with health information, improperly protecting credit card information, and providing access to your business to disabled people are important enough to enforce via the law. It doesn’t really matter what the business owner’s beliefs are at that point. Anyone who really thinks it’s so important to deny blind people equal access to their web site is free to run for Congress or find a politician who agrees with them to vote for.