5 ms·

I’m wondering/surprised about the A being piled in - isn’t accessibility a law? I remember doing a11y work long before DEI, and it wasn’t a political issue.

by trhway 2y ago

moontear 2y ago
The article states exactly that: still a law
- conductr 2y ago
  Yes but I think the political climate is such that laws are all now subjective and could be tossed aside at a whim by any executive action and follow on rulings that would side with it. In any case, could be a long period of limbo while we “decide” what each law even means to those in power. So with that, what does something being a law even mean right now?
buckle8017 2y ago
[flagged]
- davkan 2y ago
  > Blame them. No I’m going to blame the people reducing accessibility for disabled Americans via executive order.
  - smashah 2y ago
    Smart move. Blame the ones with the power doing the action. What a novel concept in this day and age. Thank you.
- tomlockwood 2y ago
  You got a single verifiable example of this?
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42828004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42828004
- freejazz 2y ago
  I find it interesting that this use of racism is passed off without concern but it would be uncool to call someone here a racist. I don't really see the difference. All that being said, they seem like similar principles to me, but I'm not the one throwing around what's racist, and based on your use of it, I guess you'd disagree.
  - smashah 2y ago
    The venn diagram of racists and ableists is 1 single egg.
- griomnib 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. Also, you crossed badly into personal attack here. Please don't do that on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. You may not owe people who you feel are losers better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - griomnib 2y ago
      That’s fair, you’re right. In my defense, I’ve been advocating for accessibility in computing for over 20 years, and reading the original post really enraged me as it goes against all I stand for, hence reacting too strongly here.
- dang 2y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - buckle8017 2y ago
    The federal bureaucracy has been making moves for months to prevent Trump from effectively changing policy[0]. Moving ADA protected accessibility concerns into the literal DEI departments (I don't mean individual people) is clearly part of that attempt to "harden" themselves from executive orders and top down policy changes. Indeed the ATF has just blatantly violated the executive order ending DEI programs[1]. Ultimately it's the bureaucracy using accessibility as a shield who are responsible for it being attacked. What I say is certainly... pithy but I take exception with saying any of it is un-substantive or flamebait. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/politics/resistance-trump-liberal-groups/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/politics/resistance-trump-lib... [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/atf-accused-of-circumventing-trump-order-to-place-dei-staff-on-paid-leave/ar-AA1xNG2J https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/atf-accused-of...
    - dang 2y ago
      You didn't include any of that information above—you just made a denunciatory flamewar comment. That's what we're asking you not to do. If you had posted this later comment originally, it would have been fine, or almost fine—it's probably still too much of a political battle post to be completely fine.
viraptor 2y ago
It's very likely that there will be court cases soon trying to figure out what does this actually mean in practice. (The gov itself has a month to figure out what it means in the first place) I mean, apart from the performative cruelty and defining a minority outgroup to be angry at. But yeah, accessibility is supposed to be required for government properties, by various laws.
tomlockwood 2y ago
I think there's a big difference between something being a law and there being anyone around to implement that law, and indeed, there being a government department or regulator checking the law is being followed. There won't be anyone doing any of that.
- foota 2y ago
  I believe the government would be sued if not in compliance with e.g., the ADA
  - lazide 2y ago
    How can you show the gov’t is not in compliance with the ADA if there is no one able to check for compliance with the ADA? Near as I can tell, that is also why the cyber intrusion investigation folks are being targeted to. If we never test, and there is no one to complain to, then clearly it is not a problem and not happening eh?
    - foota 2y ago
      That's what the courts are for.
      - OldGuyInTheClub 2y ago
        [flagged]
        lazide 2y ago
        IMO, the thing to remember about the current administration, is that chaos is a useful tool. And for the last several admins (at least), actually solving problems isn’t really that interesting. It is just as useful for them that court challenges do work (at least against many of the smaller players) - as it gives them a chance to blame the courts, and push for more power. They aren’t there to actually solve problems (well, most problems anyway). They are there to get more personal power and wealth. If they can do that by pretending to do what someone needs, while actually not really solving that need and instead sowing the seeds of a bigger mess only they can solve? Awesome. If some of their supporters get thrown into the meat grinder for that to happen? Meh. As long as they can plausibly blame them for it, anyway. This, IMO applies to all the major ‘split’ issues - abortion, gun control, immigration, you name it. One ‘advantage’ too for those in power for those playing this game, is anyone someone ‘on the edge’ of doing legal stuff has to support them and give them even more power to undermine the legal system, since a reversion to the mean will definitely put them in jail.
suraci 2y ago
I regard it as a branch of bureaucracy. If you establish a department to handle a matter that is claimed to be important but is actually insignificant (often for public relations purposes), this department will actively expand its influence, inserting and entangling itself into every corner of the organization to avoid its own existential crisis. to avoid misunderstanding, here, the 'claimed to be important but is actually insignificant' refers to something that, from the organization's perspective
lazide 2y ago
All of it is law, albeit a specific interpretation of the law. ‘legitimate business purpose’ discrimination has always been allowed, which is why it’s okay to only hire black actors for a role that calls for black actors in a movie, or only pretty young women as strippers, etc. Also, discrimination like ‘I just don’t like them’. Illegal discrimination is where the hiring person is discriminated based on a protected class where it is not a legitimate business need [https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination#:~:text=Applicants%2C%20employees%20and%20former%20employees,(including%20family%20medical%20history) https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte....] There are a million different ways to structure these rules however (and actually do hiring) with different entirely predictable outcomes in actual employee race/sex/gender composition. As well as different types of employment environments that when interacting with regional cultural/socialization backgrounds, will result in entirely predictable outcomes in actual employee race/sex/gender/national origin/age compositions. For example, you aren’t going to find many supermodels working at the local sewer treatment plant. Or blandly ugly people working in the entertainment industry. However, depending on the organization and size (the federal gov’t has had this since the 70’s, and it’s been expanding over the years to even large companies the last 10ish or so), there is a federal requirement for Affirmative Action as well, where if the company/org, etc. doesn’t have the ‘right amount’ of people who meet course these criteria determined by the department of labor, then there is a presumption that it proves ‘defacto’ illegal discrimination. There is no need for candidates being discriminated against illegally at that point to show they are being discriminated against (and in fact, they may not actually be discriminated against in any explicit or conscious way) - the mere fact they are not there in a given % of representation is taken of evidence of that discrimination. That means if a company/organization gets too much attention, then they are required to actually discriminate against other candidates to ensure the outcomes of their hiring and retention roughly match what the DOL would expect. Regardless of the actual circumstances/suitability of their hiring. That also means if someone is ‘over represented’, then that means they’ll be discriminated against quite consistently and per the department of labor, ‘legally’. It’s essentially a ‘necessary evil’. The backlash now appears to be targeting anything related to those efforts, nominally under the idea of meritocracy, but eh, that is frankly not a very convincing figleaf. And yes, it will be targeting everyone who isn’t.. well, you can guess.
archagon 2y ago
Laws no longer matter. Our new president is a felon, after all.
kcplate 2y ago
As was said in another comment on this thread, some agencies chose to add accessibility into their DEI programs. A11y needs were already legally protected (and still is). Unfortunately by tying it into a political concept (that is not precisely protected by law) that was implemented via an executive order, the agencies that chose to add the A to their DEI ended up putting those budgets for a11y at a temporary risk by executive order too. The government still needs to follow the ADA law and budget for that accordingly.

I’m wondering/surprised about the A being piled in - isn’t accessibility a law? I remember doing a11y work long before DEI, and it wasn’t a political issue.

by trhway 2y ago

I’m wondering/surprised about the A being piled in - isn’t accessibility a law? I remember doing a11y work long before DEI, and it wasn’t a political issue.

moontear 2y ago

The article states exactly that: still a law

conductr 2y ago
Yes but I think the political climate is such that laws are all now subjective and could be tossed aside at a whim by any executive action and follow on rulings that would side with it. In any case, could be a long period of limbo while we “decide” what each law even means to those in power. So with that, what does something being a law even mean right now?

buckle8017 2y ago

[flagged]

davkan 2y ago
> Blame them. No I’m going to blame the people reducing accessibility for disabled Americans via executive order.
- smashah 2y ago
  Smart move. Blame the ones with the power doing the action. What a novel concept in this day and age. Thank you.
tomlockwood 2y ago
You got a single verifiable example of this?
- anonfordays 2y ago
  Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42828004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42828004
freejazz 2y ago
I find it interesting that this use of racism is passed off without concern but it would be uncool to call someone here a racist. I don't really see the difference. All that being said, they seem like similar principles to me, but I'm not the one throwing around what's racist, and based on your use of it, I guess you'd disagree.
- smashah 2y ago
  The venn diagram of racists and ableists is 1 single egg.
griomnib 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. Also, you crossed badly into personal attack here. Please don't do that on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. You may not owe people who you feel are losers better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - griomnib 2y ago
    That’s fair, you’re right. In my defense, I’ve been advocating for accessibility in computing for over 20 years, and reading the original post really enraged me as it goes against all I stand for, hence reacting too strongly here.
dang 2y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- buckle8017 2y ago
  The federal bureaucracy has been making moves for months to prevent Trump from effectively changing policy[0]. Moving ADA protected accessibility concerns into the literal DEI departments (I don't mean individual people) is clearly part of that attempt to "harden" themselves from executive orders and top down policy changes. Indeed the ATF has just blatantly violated the executive order ending DEI programs[1]. Ultimately it's the bureaucracy using accessibility as a shield who are responsible for it being attacked. What I say is certainly... pithy but I take exception with saying any of it is un-substantive or flamebait. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/politics/resistance-trump-liberal-groups/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/politics/resistance-trump-lib... [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/atf-accused-of-circumventing-trump-order-to-place-dei-staff-on-paid-leave/ar-AA1xNG2J https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/atf-accused-of...
  - dang 2y ago
    You didn't include any of that information above—you just made a denunciatory flamewar comment. That's what we're asking you not to do. If you had posted this later comment originally, it would have been fine, or almost fine—it's probably still too much of a political battle post to be completely fine.

viraptor 2y ago

It's very likely that there will be court cases soon trying to figure out what does this actually mean in practice. (The gov itself has a month to figure out what it means in the first place) I mean, apart from the performative cruelty and defining a minority outgroup to be angry at. But yeah, accessibility is supposed to be required for government properties, by various laws.

tomlockwood 2y ago

I think there's a big difference between something being a law and there being anyone around to implement that law, and indeed, there being a government department or regulator checking the law is being followed. There won't be anyone doing any of that.

foota 2y ago
I believe the government would be sued if not in compliance with e.g., the ADA
- lazide 2y ago
  How can you show the gov’t is not in compliance with the ADA if there is no one able to check for compliance with the ADA? Near as I can tell, that is also why the cyber intrusion investigation folks are being targeted to. If we never test, and there is no one to complain to, then clearly it is not a problem and not happening eh?
  - foota 2y ago
    That's what the courts are for.
    - OldGuyInTheClub 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - lazide 2y ago
        IMO, the thing to remember about the current administration, is that chaos is a useful tool. And for the last several admins (at least), actually solving problems isn’t really that interesting. It is just as useful for them that court challenges do work (at least against many of the smaller players) - as it gives them a chance to blame the courts, and push for more power. They aren’t there to actually solve problems (well, most problems anyway). They are there to get more personal power and wealth. If they can do that by pretending to do what someone needs, while actually not really solving that need and instead sowing the seeds of a bigger mess only they can solve? Awesome. If some of their supporters get thrown into the meat grinder for that to happen? Meh. As long as they can plausibly blame them for it, anyway. This, IMO applies to all the major ‘split’ issues - abortion, gun control, immigration, you name it. One ‘advantage’ too for those in power for those playing this game, is anyone someone ‘on the edge’ of doing legal stuff has to support them and give them even more power to undermine the legal system, since a reversion to the mean will definitely put them in jail.

suraci 2y ago

I regard it as a branch of bureaucracy. If you establish a department to handle a matter that is claimed to be important but is actually insignificant (often for public relations purposes), this department will actively expand its influence, inserting and entangling itself into every corner of the organization to avoid its own existential crisis. to avoid misunderstanding, here, the 'claimed to be important but is actually insignificant' refers to something that, from the organization's perspective

lazide 2y ago

All of it is law, albeit a specific interpretation of the law. ‘legitimate business purpose’ discrimination has always been allowed, which is why it’s okay to only hire black actors for a role that calls for black actors in a movie, or only pretty young women as strippers, etc. Also, discrimination like ‘I just don’t like them’. Illegal discrimination is where the hiring person is discriminated based on a protected class where it is not a legitimate business need [https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination#:~:text=Applicants%2C%20employees%20and%20former%20employees,(including%20family%20medical%20history) https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte....] There are a million different ways to structure these rules however (and actually do hiring) with different entirely predictable outcomes in actual employee race/sex/gender composition. As well as different types of employment environments that when interacting with regional cultural/socialization backgrounds, will result in entirely predictable outcomes in actual employee race/sex/gender/national origin/age compositions. For example, you aren’t going to find many supermodels working at the local sewer treatment plant. Or blandly ugly people working in the entertainment industry. However, depending on the organization and size (the federal gov’t has had this since the 70’s, and it’s been expanding over the years to even large companies the last 10ish or so), there is a federal requirement for Affirmative Action as well, where if the company/org, etc. doesn’t have the ‘right amount’ of people who meet course these criteria determined by the department of labor, then there is a presumption that it proves ‘defacto’ illegal discrimination. There is no need for candidates being discriminated against illegally at that point to show they are being discriminated against (and in fact, they may not actually be discriminated against in any explicit or conscious way) - the mere fact they are not there in a given % of representation is taken of evidence of that discrimination. That means if a company/organization gets too much attention, then they are required to actually discriminate against other candidates to ensure the outcomes of their hiring and retention roughly match what the DOL would expect. Regardless of the actual circumstances/suitability of their hiring. That also means if someone is ‘over represented’, then that means they’ll be discriminated against quite consistently and per the department of labor, ‘legally’. It’s essentially a ‘necessary evil’. The backlash now appears to be targeting anything related to those efforts, nominally under the idea of meritocracy, but eh, that is frankly not a very convincing figleaf. And yes, it will be targeting everyone who isn’t.. well, you can guess.

archagon 2y ago

Laws no longer matter. Our new president is a felon, after all.

kcplate 2y ago

As was said in another comment on this thread, some agencies chose to add accessibility into their DEI programs. A11y needs were already legally protected (and still is). Unfortunately by tying it into a political concept (that is not precisely protected by law) that was implemented via an executive order, the agencies that chose to add the A to their DEI ended up putting those budgets for a11y at a temporary risk by executive order too. The government still needs to follow the ADA law and budget for that accordingly.