3 ms·

> you're all drawing a distinction that I don't see? The distinction you are not seeing is between actual harm and a pretext for lawyers to sue. Actual harm t

> you're all drawing a distinction that I don't see? The distinction you are not seeing is between actual harm and a pretext for lawyers to sue. Actual harm to the environment and real business profits result from manufacturers producing and selling proprietary charing devices (I bought at least 3 and disposed of at least 2 Apple magsafe2 chargers, while having perfectly working generic chargers around my home). An indie developer hosting a free website is neither causing permanent and irreversible damage to the environment nor is he making any money as a result of his websites not being accessibility compliant.

dereg 4y ago
> An indie developer hosting a free website is neither causing permanent and irreversible damage to the environment nor is he making any money as a result of his websites not being accessibility compliant. Odd complaint seeing as how Apple no longer includes chargers with iPhones, on environmental grounds. There are many people who complained about that, as well.
themitigating 4y ago
The developer is causing harm to those who want to access it but can't and he's making money by not making it accessible. As for harming the environment, that's unrelated
- ok_dad 4y ago
  And now no one can use it. Perhaps there’s a way to provide access to those who need it but not sue a person for making a hobby site?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    You're assuming the only outcome is the website is shutdown. That's what happened here.
    - ok_dad 4y ago
      No, I’m saying that the law actually reduced access for this set of lessons, and perhaps we should figure out ways to make things accessible for everyone other than putting the onus on the little guy. Maybe if you’re just one person, then there could be a program where larger companies are required to pay a small tax or donate developer time (in lieu of tax) to help you make your site accessible. That way, the larger companies who can afford to make their site accessible follow the law and do so, and then they also take some of the profits they made off of the public to do a public good.

dereg 4y ago

> An indie developer hosting a free website is neither causing permanent and irreversible damage to the environment nor is he making any money as a result of his websites not being accessibility compliant. Odd complaint seeing as how Apple no longer includes chargers with iPhones, on environmental grounds. There are many people who complained about that, as well.

themitigating 4y ago

The developer is causing harm to those who want to access it but can't and he's making money by not making it accessible. As for harming the environment, that's unrelated

ok_dad 4y ago
And now no one can use it. Perhaps there’s a way to provide access to those who need it but not sue a person for making a hobby site?
- themitigating 4y ago
  You're assuming the only outcome is the website is shutdown. That's what happened here.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    No, I’m saying that the law actually reduced access for this set of lessons, and perhaps we should figure out ways to make things accessible for everyone other than putting the onus on the little guy. Maybe if you’re just one person, then there could be a program where larger companies are required to pay a small tax or donate developer time (in lieu of tax) to help you make your site accessible. That way, the larger companies who can afford to make their site accessible follow the law and do so, and then they also take some of the profits they made off of the public to do a public good.