3 ms·
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?
by 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 agoSo that your website is accessible, it's an odd question.
- BitwiseFool 4y agoI'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 agoWho 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 agoA 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.