5 ms·

> 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 pers

> 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.

miki123211 4y ago
If a disabled person asks for anything, they usually get a generic "we care about your feedback, this is on our radar" response and nothing actually happens. I'm speaking from experience here, I've done quite a few accessibility-related support requests, and getting a human to answer is very often a struggle.
tehwebguy 4y ago
I don't know anything about the unnamed firm mentioned up the thread other than what the OP said but it doesn't sound like they are actually following the law: I doubt that simply "finding" a website with a video that lacks captions is enough for a viable suit. From Googling, it appears that suits without actual damages are getting thrown out[0], so I'd guess the attorneys running that show are doing something unlawful but not illegal by filing these suits, or maybe something not even unlawful by simply making legal demands without filing. Probably one of the biggest causes for all of this pain is that so many "white collar" violations of public trust are either a) not actually illegal or b) not handled by any law enforcement. The Prenda Law debacle comes to mind though -- these guys spent years terrorizing people with copyright law before anything really came of it but, incredibly, they actually ended up convicted on fairly serious charges. It's super wild to read about, I wonder if they had dialed it back a tiny bit they would have stayed under the radar completely. [0] This doesn't help the defendants in question with their own attorney's fees but does send a message about viability of these garbage suits to the plaintiffs and every other firm looking into it.

miki123211 4y ago

If a disabled person asks for anything, they usually get a generic "we care about your feedback, this is on our radar" response and nothing actually happens. I'm speaking from experience here, I've done quite a few accessibility-related support requests, and getting a human to answer is very often a struggle.

tehwebguy 4y ago

I don't know anything about the unnamed firm mentioned up the thread other than what the OP said but it doesn't sound like they are actually following the law: I doubt that simply "finding" a website with a video that lacks captions is enough for a viable suit. From Googling, it appears that suits without actual damages are getting thrown out[0], so I'd guess the attorneys running that show are doing something unlawful but not illegal by filing these suits, or maybe something not even unlawful by simply making legal demands without filing. Probably one of the biggest causes for all of this pain is that so many "white collar" violations of public trust are either a) not actually illegal or b) not handled by any law enforcement. The Prenda Law debacle comes to mind though -- these guys spent years terrorizing people with copyright law before anything really came of it but, incredibly, they actually ended up convicted on fairly serious charges. It's super wild to read about, I wonder if they had dialed it back a tiny bit they would have stayed under the radar completely. [0] This doesn't help the defendants in question with their own attorney's fees but does send a message about viability of these garbage suits to the plaintiffs and every other firm looking into it.