5 ms·

"If it were wrong it would be illegal."

by plussed_reader 4y ago

littlestymaar 4y ago
- ccvannorman 4y ago
  This "wonder" you find yourself with is a result of the mismatch between observable data, statistics, and our intuition. On the news we may read about Arson (or other "angry actions" by individuals) but this is highly negative selection bias - the actual incidence rate is near zero. Because we have a lot of data like this (negative news that you are exposed to) we tend to over-estimate the incidence rate of arson (e.g. 1% instead of 0.001%) So, when you ask the question "Why isn't $action provoking more $arson here", the answer is simple: statistically speaking, each individual is extremely unlikely to do arson (or similar), so even though they've been perturbed, the incidence doesn't really go up. Another way to say it: Everyone knows the ROI on arson is negative, no matter how upset you are, crime is never worth it as a response, because you have zero upside. So almost everyone (overwhelming majority) don't do this (but we might think they would, again because we're exposed to negative bias news data)
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  > companies doing that Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? I mean if my health insurer, for example, couldn't accommodate a disability of mine, especially something as common as low vision or hearing, I'd certainly feel like getting revenge but doesn't everyone feel that way about every health insurer every year or two? If you meant the other way around, like if someone sued me because I was the one essentially locking people with a disability out from using my service I'd probably just take a really logical approach to handling it (for instance, making the accommodation they request). From what I've read the most common outcome in these cases is that the defendant is ordered to make the accommodation. Getting sued or even just threatened with a lawsuit is pretty scary though, if anyone here is facing threat of lawsuit I'd suggest you consult with several attorneys right away but also find a YouTube attorney to set your expectations of the process. It's super easy to get fleeced by your own attorney unless you direct them pretty intentionally.
  - angst_ridden 4y ago
    I believe in making things accessible, and strive to do that on all my projects. I object to abuse of the ADA. Businesses / organizations should be given an opportunity to remediate their web sites before an automated script files an erroneous lawsuit.
    - jibe 4y ago
      It should be an easy legal fix - you have to give notice and ~120 day window to fix before you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Also, not sure private parties should be plaintiffs here.
      - drc500free 4y ago
        Without private action, they would need funding for enforcement. To have funding for enforcement, they would have to either levy fines against offenders or raise taxes. Those are non-starters for getting the legislation passed, and the opponents hope that they can later claim that the private action is an abuse of the legal system.
    - tehwebguy 4y ago
      That is already the most common out come of ADA website suits it would seem: > The most common penalty at the federal level is a demand that the website be updated swiftly to better cater to people with disabilities. [0] https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-compliant/#What_Do_I_Need_to_Do_to_Make_My_Website_ADA_Compliant https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-c...
      - hedora 4y ago
        That doesn't apply in California or New York. I heard California is trying to bring back the grace period.
  - knodi123 4y ago
    > Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? You think these people are champions of the disabled? If a disabled person wanted to see the video, and could not, and asked them for help, that would be one thing. This ain't that. They're fucking vultures, they are in this to make money off of as many people as possible, regardless of the harm they cause. This is no more sane than the Texas law that allows people to be amateur bounty hunters and dogpile on anyone who might have played any kind of role in any woman's abortion.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  This is essentially a legal protection money racket. People running a racket never leave you with nothing left to lose. Most obviously because they can't come back for more. But also because people with nothing left to lose will burn down al Capone's house and not care that they are about to be killed in some horrible way. These legal rackets know if they hit you for something you can afford to pay and keep your business running, that you aren't likely to throw it all away for empty vengeance. Cameras are everywhere now.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Cameras don't work if the neighborhood transformer is down for unscheduled reconfiguration
    - hedora 4y ago
      These days, they do. Batteries and solar panels cost less then running a cable.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    > Cameras are everywhere now. They clearly aren't, and there are around a hundred arson committed each day in average in the US so it doesn't look like the sheer number of surveillance camera is enough of a deterrent for the typical criminal.
- verisimilitudes 4y ago
rat87 4y ago
It is illegal, that's why they sued.

"If it were wrong it would be illegal."

littlestymaar 4y ago

ccvannorman 4y ago
This "wonder" you find yourself with is a result of the mismatch between observable data, statistics, and our intuition. On the news we may read about Arson (or other "angry actions" by individuals) but this is highly negative selection bias - the actual incidence rate is near zero. Because we have a lot of data like this (negative news that you are exposed to) we tend to over-estimate the incidence rate of arson (e.g. 1% instead of 0.001%) So, when you ask the question "Why isn't $action provoking more $arson here", the answer is simple: statistically speaking, each individual is extremely unlikely to do arson (or similar), so even though they've been perturbed, the incidence doesn't really go up. Another way to say it: Everyone knows the ROI on arson is negative, no matter how upset you are, crime is never worth it as a response, because you have zero upside. So almost everyone (overwhelming majority) don't do this (but we might think they would, again because we're exposed to negative bias news data)
tehwebguy 4y ago
> companies doing that Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? I mean if my health insurer, for example, couldn't accommodate a disability of mine, especially something as common as low vision or hearing, I'd certainly feel like getting revenge but doesn't everyone feel that way about every health insurer every year or two? If you meant the other way around, like if someone sued me because I was the one essentially locking people with a disability out from using my service I'd probably just take a really logical approach to handling it (for instance, making the accommodation they request). From what I've read the most common outcome in these cases is that the defendant is ordered to make the accommodation. Getting sued or even just threatened with a lawsuit is pretty scary though, if anyone here is facing threat of lawsuit I'd suggest you consult with several attorneys right away but also find a YouTube attorney to set your expectations of the process. It's super easy to get fleeced by your own attorney unless you direct them pretty intentionally.
- angst_ridden 4y ago
  I believe in making things accessible, and strive to do that on all my projects. I object to abuse of the ADA. Businesses / organizations should be given an opportunity to remediate their web sites before an automated script files an erroneous lawsuit.
  - jibe 4y ago
    It should be an easy legal fix - you have to give notice and ~120 day window to fix before you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Also, not sure private parties should be plaintiffs here.
    - drc500free 4y ago
      Without private action, they would need funding for enforcement. To have funding for enforcement, they would have to either levy fines against offenders or raise taxes. Those are non-starters for getting the legislation passed, and the opponents hope that they can later claim that the private action is an abuse of the legal system.
  - tehwebguy 4y ago
    That is already the most common out come of ADA website suits it would seem: > The most common penalty at the federal level is a demand that the website be updated swiftly to better cater to people with disabilities. [0] https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-compliant/#What_Do_I_Need_to_Do_to_Make_My_Website_ADA_Compliant https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-c...
    - hedora 4y ago
      That doesn't apply in California or New York. I heard California is trying to bring back the grace period.
- knodi123 4y ago
  > Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? You think these people are champions of the disabled? If a disabled person wanted to see the video, and could not, and asked them for help, that would be one thing. This ain't that. They're fucking vultures, they are in this to make money off of as many people as possible, regardless of the harm they cause. This is no more sane than the Texas law that allows people to be amateur bounty hunters and dogpile on anyone who might have played any kind of role in any woman's abortion.
galangalalgol 4y ago
This is essentially a legal protection money racket. People running a racket never leave you with nothing left to lose. Most obviously because they can't come back for more. But also because people with nothing left to lose will burn down al Capone's house and not care that they are about to be killed in some horrible way. These legal rackets know if they hit you for something you can afford to pay and keep your business running, that you aren't likely to throw it all away for empty vengeance. Cameras are everywhere now.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Cameras don't work if the neighborhood transformer is down for unscheduled reconfiguration
  - hedora 4y ago
    These days, they do. Batteries and solar panels cost less then running a cable.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  > Cameras are everywhere now. They clearly aren't, and there are around a hundred arson committed each day in average in the US so it doesn't look like the sheer number of surveillance camera is enough of a deterrent for the typical criminal.
verisimilitudes 4y ago

rat87 4y ago

It is illegal, that's why they sued.