12 ms·

There needs to be a system where accessibility issues can be raised and addressed without allowing attorneys to profiteer from the system.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
Most countries do this through government enforcement of regulations through licensing, fees and fines. The US actively avoids this in favor of having private citizens enforce regulations through lawsuits.
- hedora 4y ago
  The US gets this right (businesses can only be successfully sued if they ignore complaints). California and New York are the only states where you can sue for damages before giving the business a chance to fix it. Those are the states where the ADA is abused.
twblalock 4y ago
Why, so the arbitrators of that system can profit instead? And so the people who appoint them can profit from having such a lucrative power?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  So that your website is accessible, it's an odd question.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by this. The process can still be something that involves a government body, but one where the complainant cannot sue for damages so long as good-faith efforts to remediate the problem are being made. And hopefully one where a punitive fine/fee is not assessed. I don't think anyone who puts a video online should be punished if they didn't know they had to put closed captions on it.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Who pays for that government body? There's a reason you can't claim ignorance of the law, because it would be extremely difficult to prove a person was aware something was illegal
- alistairSH 4y ago
  A proceess that avoids the profiteering is maybe... - complainant makes complaint to government agency - Agency investigates and makes demands for changes - Fines levied by agency on failure to address shortcomings Private suits like we see here (and other ADA-type regulations), where lawyers serve to profit directly, are the problem. Not accessibility regulations in general.
josephcsible 4y ago
The problem isn't that attorneys can profiteer. The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time and money to make available a public resource that you're not making any money off of, you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone... The unfortunate end result of that is certain segments of the population treated as second-class citizens.
  - drdeca 4y ago
    Then either whoever wants to fix that problem should pay for the additional costs, or accept that they aren't willing to do what is needed to fix the problem.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      Conflating "willingness to do" with "ability to pay" is a fundamental attribution error.
      - drdeca 4y ago
        ok, not willing-and-able then.
        lazyasciiart 4y ago
        Ah, so not-rich people ought to just accept that social change is only supposed to be driven by the rich, and stop passing laws and suing people. That's certainly one vision for society, but not one I like.
        drdeca 4y ago
knaekhoved 4y ago
Do you understand that "issues can be raised" is necessarily a euphemism for "people can be threatened with fines, bankruptcy, or jail time"?
- pc86 4y ago
  It is possible for financial penalties to be levied without enriching private attorneys.
vkou 4y ago
Yes, that system would be called government-driven enforcement. It shouldn't be my job, as a private citizen, to launch a lawsuit to ensure that vendors comply with relevant laws.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Hello Texas abortion law
  - Spivak 4y ago
    That law is from a purely legal perspective, wild. It doesn’t at all matter the specific issue, this law grants standing for someone to sue who is not harmed nor even involved in an act [1]. This is genuine perversion of the law and we are going to regret not immediately closing this can of worms. This law literally allows the government to end run around all federal and constitutional protections including state constitutions. You could outlaw guns with this, eliminate interracial marriage, prevent women from voting, censor arbitrary speech. [1] I don’t want to say crime because it’s a civil suit. Texas could in theory pass a law like this about anything. This is a long way of saying that the Texas abortion law is a whole different league from ADA where you actually have to be harmed and prove it to sue.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
themitigating 4y ago
The business would still have to make the change. That costs money

lazyasciiart 4y ago

Most countries do this through government enforcement of regulations through licensing, fees and fines. The US actively avoids this in favor of having private citizens enforce regulations through lawsuits.

hedora 4y ago
The US gets this right (businesses can only be successfully sued if they ignore complaints). California and New York are the only states where you can sue for damages before giving the business a chance to fix it. Those are the states where the ADA is abused.

twblalock 4y ago

Why, so the arbitrators of that system can profit instead? And so the people who appoint them can profit from having such a lucrative power?

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
So that your website is accessible, it's an odd question.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The process can still be something that involves a government body, but one where the complainant cannot sue for damages so long as good-faith efforts to remediate the problem are being made. And hopefully one where a punitive fine/fee is not assessed. I don't think anyone who puts a video online should be punished if they didn't know they had to put closed captions on it.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Who pays for that government body? There's a reason you can't claim ignorance of the law, because it would be extremely difficult to prove a person was aware something was illegal
alistairSH 4y ago
A proceess that avoids the profiteering is maybe... - complainant makes complaint to government agency - Agency investigates and makes demands for changes - Fines levied by agency on failure to address shortcomings Private suits like we see here (and other ADA-type regulations), where lawyers serve to profit directly, are the problem. Not accessibility regulations in general.

josephcsible 4y ago

The problem isn't that attorneys can profiteer. The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time and money to make available a public resource that you're not making any money off of, you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone... The unfortunate end result of that is certain segments of the population treated as second-class citizens.
- drdeca 4y ago
  Then either whoever wants to fix that problem should pay for the additional costs, or accept that they aren't willing to do what is needed to fix the problem.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Conflating "willingness to do" with "ability to pay" is a fundamental attribution error.
    - drdeca 4y ago
      ok, not willing-and-able then.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        Ah, so not-rich people ought to just accept that social change is only supposed to be driven by the rich, and stop passing laws and suing people. That's certainly one vision for society, but not one I like.
        drdeca 4y ago

knaekhoved 4y ago

Do you understand that "issues can be raised" is necessarily a euphemism for "people can be threatened with fines, bankruptcy, or jail time"?

pc86 4y ago
It is possible for financial penalties to be levied without enriching private attorneys.

vkou 4y ago

Yes, that system would be called government-driven enforcement. It shouldn't be my job, as a private citizen, to launch a lawsuit to ensure that vendors comply with relevant laws.

themitigating 4y ago
Hello Texas abortion law
- Spivak 4y ago
  That law is from a purely legal perspective, wild. It doesn’t at all matter the specific issue, this law grants standing for someone to sue who is not harmed nor even involved in an act [1]. This is genuine perversion of the law and we are going to regret not immediately closing this can of worms. This law literally allows the government to end run around all federal and constitutional protections including state constitutions. You could outlaw guns with this, eliminate interracial marriage, prevent women from voting, censor arbitrary speech. [1] I don’t want to say crime because it’s a civil suit. Texas could in theory pass a law like this about anything. This is a long way of saying that the Texas abortion law is a whole different league from ADA where you actually have to be harmed and prove it to sue.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

themitigating 4y ago

The business would still have to make the change. That costs money