6 ms·

While I am a huge fan of ad blockers, and as some one with ADHD I am very sympathetic to the argument, I suspect that your friend is not a lawyer, and/or is not

While I am a huge fan of ad blockers, and as some one with ADHD I am very sympathetic to the argument, I suspect that your friend is not a lawyer, and/or is not very familiar with the limitations of the ADA.

kstrauser 1y ago
He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups. What about blind people who pipe the output of a screen through text-to-speech? Or people with epilepsy who can’t use flashy screens? Or someone who needs to enlarge print or change its contrast? There are plenty of medical reasons to need to alter their browser presentations.
- limagnolia 1y ago
  I agree with this in general, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is current law. Now, I will also say I am not a lawyer, and I can't say for certain its not, but having dealt with ADA claims and done a fair amount of research into it, I know that it is often a very misunderstood law. I believe that fighting to protect assistive technologies at all levels is a worthy fight.
- brookst 1y ago
  IANAL, but the critical thing to know is that the ADA doesn’t mean that every assistive technology is mandated / required. Wheelchair users would benefit from dedicated elevators where their face is not butt-level with strangers in tight spaces; the ADA doesn’t mean not mandate this accommodation.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    Is there an alternative technology that allows people to use websites without flashing ads?
    - woofcat 1y ago
      screen readers / text based browsers / etc.
      - tmerc 1y ago
        Text based browsers are largely non functional on modern websites.
        webspinner 1y ago
        Yeah, I don't use one lol!
      - kstrauser 1y ago
        I don’t want to use a “separate but equal” Internet. Screen readers support very specific situations that don’t apply to me. I see using them as the equivalent of tweaking my knee and having to sit in a wheelchair so that I can just use wheelchair accommodations and call it a day. Nah. I don’t want to use a wheelchair or a screen reader because those devices weren’t made for my own needs and don’t suit me.
        webspinner 1y ago
        Screen readers do not skip ads! If they're there, they still get in the way. There are commands you can use to make things more efficient to navigate, but if the ads take up most of the page, it's just going to be an exercise in ridiculousness!
        kstrauser 1y ago
        That sounds awful, and it's something I hadn't really thought of before. I can empathize with not wanting to have to deal with that.
        brookst 1y ago
        Understandable, but my point was that the ADA is not a “I get whatever I want” law. It has specific requirements. IANAL but I do not believe that just declaring something desirable for yourself and your needs makes it legally required under ADA.
- drstewart 1y ago
  Sounds like images are illegal
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    You may find this story relevant and helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44801718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44801718
- xoa 1y ago
  >He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups But what ARE those legal protections? That's the really complicated bit isn't it? ADA does not simply mandate anything anyone could imagine at any price, and there still isn't a huge amount of caselaw when it comes to the web. FWIW in this specific case I think there is some basis, but it doesn't seem clearly established either. The natural starting point is the government ADA site's own guidance [0], and that in turn cites the W3's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as helpful. In turn, that has section 2.3 covering "Seizures and Physical Reactions". But that's specifically about physical effects, does mere distraction count, and at what threshold? Like, it says no more than 3 flashes per second, but if a site ensures it's just blinking once per second, you might still find that distracting but it's not clear there's any case under ADA unless you can point to some other precedent (or establish one yourself). Would offering a pay option that eliminates all ads be a reasonable accommodation or not? Did they make a good enough effort if they pick a major ad network that promises compliance? I don't know, but it doesn't seem cut and dry. And all of that is about the website owner's responsibilities, not 3rd parties. Like, it doesn't seem clear to me there is any legal requirement for a given web browser to create/maintain APIs for ad blocking under ADA, and any such case would run into complex speech and other considerations particularly in the case of an open source browser (the same challenges also protect from the US government ever trying to ban them). I think you have a decent moral/political argument which is important, but I guess just realize the legal aspects are complex. And that's before touching on the practical ones. ---- 0: https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/ https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/ 1: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#seizures-and-physical-reactions https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#seizures-and-physical-reaction...
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    I think the arguments are even stronger in this case. I’m not asking the website owner to make any accommodations to me at all. I’m not asking them to change a single line of code or tweak a single setting. A physical business owner may not own the sidewalk in front of their business while still being legally obligated to maintain it, and I’m not even asking that. I’m asking that they don’t go out of their way to take expensive and complex technical or legal steps that prevent me from bringing my own accommodations with me, ones that have zero effect on other visitors and cost the owner zero time, effort, and money. Yes, I’m sure they’d prefer I watched the squares of pixels they sold to 3rd parties. I also bet they’d prefer not to have to pay to install a wheelchair ramp, but they don’t get to make that decision, either.
- webspinner 1y ago
  If I wanted to, I could use reader mode for every page. I could try and find and/or generate an RSS feed for every page, but I would do most of the generating. It's just easier and faster to use an ad blocker on top of my browser, and screen reader.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    I agree completely. And besides, I like looking at pretty websites and their colors and static images and fonts. I appreciate the visual design. I do not want to be assaulted with blinky animations siphoning off my concentration. (Nor do I want to have to run malware in my browser, but I think that's a separate argument from the accessibility one.)

kstrauser 1y ago

He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups. What about blind people who pipe the output of a screen through text-to-speech? Or people with epilepsy who can’t use flashy screens? Or someone who needs to enlarge print or change its contrast? There are plenty of medical reasons to need to alter their browser presentations.

limagnolia 1y ago
I agree with this in general, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is current law. Now, I will also say I am not a lawyer, and I can't say for certain its not, but having dealt with ADA claims and done a fair amount of research into it, I know that it is often a very misunderstood law. I believe that fighting to protect assistive technologies at all levels is a worthy fight.
brookst 1y ago
IANAL, but the critical thing to know is that the ADA doesn’t mean that every assistive technology is mandated / required. Wheelchair users would benefit from dedicated elevators where their face is not butt-level with strangers in tight spaces; the ADA doesn’t mean not mandate this accommodation.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  Is there an alternative technology that allows people to use websites without flashing ads?
  - woofcat 1y ago
    screen readers / text based browsers / etc.
    - tmerc 1y ago
      Text based browsers are largely non functional on modern websites.
      - webspinner 1y ago
        Yeah, I don't use one lol!
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      I don’t want to use a “separate but equal” Internet. Screen readers support very specific situations that don’t apply to me. I see using them as the equivalent of tweaking my knee and having to sit in a wheelchair so that I can just use wheelchair accommodations and call it a day. Nah. I don’t want to use a wheelchair or a screen reader because those devices weren’t made for my own needs and don’t suit me.
      - webspinner 1y ago
        Screen readers do not skip ads! If they're there, they still get in the way. There are commands you can use to make things more efficient to navigate, but if the ads take up most of the page, it's just going to be an exercise in ridiculousness!
        kstrauser 1y ago
        That sounds awful, and it's something I hadn't really thought of before. I can empathize with not wanting to have to deal with that.
      - brookst 1y ago
        Understandable, but my point was that the ADA is not a “I get whatever I want” law. It has specific requirements. IANAL but I do not believe that just declaring something desirable for yourself and your needs makes it legally required under ADA.
drstewart 1y ago
Sounds like images are illegal
- kstrauser 1y ago
  You may find this story relevant and helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44801718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44801718
xoa 1y ago
>He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups But what ARE those legal protections? That's the really complicated bit isn't it? ADA does not simply mandate anything anyone could imagine at any price, and there still isn't a huge amount of caselaw when it comes to the web. FWIW in this specific case I think there is some basis, but it doesn't seem clearly established either. The natural starting point is the government ADA site's own guidance [0], and that in turn cites the W3's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as helpful. In turn, that has section 2.3 covering "Seizures and Physical Reactions". But that's specifically about physical effects, does mere distraction count, and at what threshold? Like, it says no more than 3 flashes per second, but if a site ensures it's just blinking once per second, you might still find that distracting but it's not clear there's any case under ADA unless you can point to some other precedent (or establish one yourself). Would offering a pay option that eliminates all ads be a reasonable accommodation or not? Did they make a good enough effort if they pick a major ad network that promises compliance? I don't know, but it doesn't seem cut and dry. And all of that is about the website owner's responsibilities, not 3rd parties. Like, it doesn't seem clear to me there is any legal requirement for a given web browser to create/maintain APIs for ad blocking under ADA, and any such case would run into complex speech and other considerations particularly in the case of an open source browser (the same challenges also protect from the US government ever trying to ban them). I think you have a decent moral/political argument which is important, but I guess just realize the legal aspects are complex. And that's before touching on the practical ones. ---- 0: https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/ https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/ 1: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#seizures-and-physical-reactions https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#seizures-and-physical-reaction...
- kstrauser 1y ago
  I think the arguments are even stronger in this case. I’m not asking the website owner to make any accommodations to me at all. I’m not asking them to change a single line of code or tweak a single setting. A physical business owner may not own the sidewalk in front of their business while still being legally obligated to maintain it, and I’m not even asking that. I’m asking that they don’t go out of their way to take expensive and complex technical or legal steps that prevent me from bringing my own accommodations with me, ones that have zero effect on other visitors and cost the owner zero time, effort, and money. Yes, I’m sure they’d prefer I watched the squares of pixels they sold to 3rd parties. I also bet they’d prefer not to have to pay to install a wheelchair ramp, but they don’t get to make that decision, either.
webspinner 1y ago
If I wanted to, I could use reader mode for every page. I could try and find and/or generate an RSS feed for every page, but I would do most of the generating. It's just easier and faster to use an ad blocker on top of my browser, and screen reader.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  I agree completely. And besides, I like looking at pretty websites and their colors and static images and fonts. I appreciate the visual design. I do not want to be assaulted with blinky animations siphoning off my concentration. (Nor do I want to have to run malware in my browser, but I think that's a separate argument from the accessibility one.)