3 ms·

Is stupidity instead of hardship a legally valid claim? Are cognitively disabled people, unable to operate a smartphone, a protected class?

Henchman21 2y ago
If the entire world requires smartphones to take part and you are unable to use a smartphone you deserve some protection, yes. If you see other options I’d be happy to hear them?
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
  My question is can I sue based on that?
  - Henchman21 2y ago
    If you’re a protected class I would assume yes. IANAL this is not legal advice and this is not a real situation anyway
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
      That's my question, am I a protected class for not being able to operate a smartphone? I think many of a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        I don’t think “person who is unable to operate a cellphone” is a protected class. There might be some overlap between those people and people in other protected classes. But it is hard to say just based on a hypothetical, right?
      - mrandish 2y ago
        > a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category. My 95 year-old mother can't use apps on her iphone because she can't figure out the navigation and various modes. Because of this her phone usage is limited to answering incoming calls, making calls to the six icons we've preset on her home screen, receiving texts and replying to the last text she received (because it's still on the screen). Anything else is iffy. And she's not cognitively impaired. She's actually quite sharp for her age and lives on her own within an assisted care community.
      - mapt 2y ago
        No. You're not. Blind people are. At least, insofar as we still have the ADA. One thing these companies are doing is charging blind people extra. Phrase it that way and you can maybe move some policy levers.
meristohm 2y ago
They are protected if we collectively-enough (laws, or culture, religion, ethics, or...?) agree to provide equitable access to people with disabilities. Human rights are made up (the local deer that spent the night in the woods near where I spend the night have no rights, they just exist in a mix of cooperation, reciprocity, and some competition. Actually, I don't know if they afford each other rights in the way we do that. Likewise, I don't know if deer focus on "productivity" as much as so many of us do...), and for good reasons (?). I wonder if rights were codified back when we were far less numerous and living so much closer to the land, amidst so much more abundant life.
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
wcag has provisions regarding cognitive issues, I have been thinking about writing an article arguing that dark patterns being liable under accessibility laws - but have not really shopped it around. Of course one thing is nobody wants to sue someone because they don't understand something, because they think it means arguing they are stupid.
- joquarky 2y ago
  On a similar note, I think the inability to pause all animations on a website seems like a kind of WCAG violation as well.
- dleink 2y ago
  If anyone needs a test case, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent human who is absolutely too stupid to use modern technology and would be glad to proclaim that to a court. (executive function, working memory issues. latency is a killer for me.)

Henchman21 2y ago

If the entire world requires smartphones to take part and you are unable to use a smartphone you deserve some protection, yes. If you see other options I’d be happy to hear them?

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
My question is can I sue based on that?
- Henchman21 2y ago
  If you’re a protected class I would assume yes. IANAL this is not legal advice and this is not a real situation anyway
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
    That's my question, am I a protected class for not being able to operate a smartphone? I think many of a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I don’t think “person who is unable to operate a cellphone” is a protected class. There might be some overlap between those people and people in other protected classes. But it is hard to say just based on a hypothetical, right?
    - mrandish 2y ago
      > a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category. My 95 year-old mother can't use apps on her iphone because she can't figure out the navigation and various modes. Because of this her phone usage is limited to answering incoming calls, making calls to the six icons we've preset on her home screen, receiving texts and replying to the last text she received (because it's still on the screen). Anything else is iffy. And she's not cognitively impaired. She's actually quite sharp for her age and lives on her own within an assisted care community.
    - mapt 2y ago
      No. You're not. Blind people are. At least, insofar as we still have the ADA. One thing these companies are doing is charging blind people extra. Phrase it that way and you can maybe move some policy levers.

meristohm 2y ago

They are protected if we collectively-enough (laws, or culture, religion, ethics, or...?) agree to provide equitable access to people with disabilities. Human rights are made up (the local deer that spent the night in the woods near where I spend the night have no rights, they just exist in a mix of cooperation, reciprocity, and some competition. Actually, I don't know if they afford each other rights in the way we do that. Likewise, I don't know if deer focus on "productivity" as much as so many of us do...), and for good reasons (?). I wonder if rights were codified back when we were far less numerous and living so much closer to the land, amidst so much more abundant life.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

wcag has provisions regarding cognitive issues, I have been thinking about writing an article arguing that dark patterns being liable under accessibility laws - but have not really shopped it around. Of course one thing is nobody wants to sue someone because they don't understand something, because they think it means arguing they are stupid.

joquarky 2y ago
On a similar note, I think the inability to pause all animations on a website seems like a kind of WCAG violation as well.
dleink 2y ago
If anyone needs a test case, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent human who is absolutely too stupid to use modern technology and would be glad to proclaim that to a court. (executive function, working memory issues. latency is a killer for me.)