6 ms·

I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point (somewhere

I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point (somewhere well before billion dollar valuations) it's unconscionable to ignore accessibility. > [Tim] Cook replied [...] that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-...

mhurron 11y ago
If you can't run a business by following relevant laws and regulations, can you really say you have a viable business model? I don't care what stage of running your business you're in, you shouldn't get to ignore laws and regulations that apply just because you don't like them, or it would be too expensive right now.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Ask any number of companies that skirt the law (mining/extraction) or who are powerful enough to simply evade the law (most pipeline incidents aren't fully accounted for in terms of environmental/damage cost because lax laws shield the companies that maintain/build pipeline). It's a question - if your business is big enough to essentially buy off legislators or judiciary, is it your company's fiduciary duty to go into legally gray area for higher profits?
  - mhurron 11y ago
    Pretty sure that being a legal entity requires you to act in a legal manner. I do not buy the 'business must do everything inside and outside the law to make money,' schtick, but then again, I'm not willing to look at companies as more important or the most important part of society either.
  - rquantz 11y ago
    This is why punishment for corporate law breaking needs to include revocation of the corporate charter after a point.
stephenr 11y ago
> companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started So, if it's inconvenient, you get to pretend it doesn't exist because you're a "startup"? That kind of mindset is what's wrong with the startup community. "Disrupt" isn't a synonym for "break any laws you don't like" and "startup" isn't a synonym for "I am above the law!"
- a3n 11y ago
  And "the law" is not the only measure of what's right. Just because it may end up being legal for Uber to discriminate against disabled doesn't mean they aren't major dicks. There's a fundamental rule for living in the world: Don't be a dick. Uber is breaking that rule, through sociopathic sophistry.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    there are many related fundamental rules, like "everyone is considered a dick by someone" and "you're a dick if you blame a group for the actions of a few." mainly, though, none of these are actually rules because your subjective notion of what being a dick means isn't transferable outside of your head, even if it really, really feels like your opinions are right.
    - a3n 11y ago
      But by saying it, I hope to convince others. Because I really, really want "defending a corporation's right to condone and tolerate disabled discrimination" to be seen as being a dick.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  In New York, there are thousands of wheelchair accessible taxis ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/accessible.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/accessible.shtml ), but there are also thousands of taxis that aren't wheelchair accessible. The ones that aren't accessible aren't breaking the ADA (then again, the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation," so the ones that aren't wheelchair accessible probably still have to make an effort to put a wheelchair in the trunk, if requested).
jmcdonald-ut 11y ago
Thank you for this quote. I often think that this gets overlooked in our industry, and I'm no exception. A recent Hanselminutes podcast[1] touched on this. It pointed to a great resource[2]. 1. http://hanselminutes.com/475/accessibility-a11y-with-opendirectives-steve-lee http://hanselminutes.com/475/accessibility-a11y-with-opendir... 2. http://a11yproject.com/ http://a11yproject.com/
Frondo 11y ago
It's funny how you call it "accessibility issues" when others would (rightly) call it "obeying the law".
- goatforce5 11y ago
  Well Uber is trying to say the law doesn't apply to them. Let's say that they find a technicality that means the law doesn't actually apply to them, should they address the underlying issue or not? Presumably they should be saying "We will fix this issue regardless of whether we're obliged to by law or not."

mhurron 11y ago

If you can't run a business by following relevant laws and regulations, can you really say you have a viable business model? I don't care what stage of running your business you're in, you shouldn't get to ignore laws and regulations that apply just because you don't like them, or it would be too expensive right now.

r00fus 11y ago
Ask any number of companies that skirt the law (mining/extraction) or who are powerful enough to simply evade the law (most pipeline incidents aren't fully accounted for in terms of environmental/damage cost because lax laws shield the companies that maintain/build pipeline). It's a question - if your business is big enough to essentially buy off legislators or judiciary, is it your company's fiduciary duty to go into legally gray area for higher profits?
- mhurron 11y ago
  Pretty sure that being a legal entity requires you to act in a legal manner. I do not buy the 'business must do everything inside and outside the law to make money,' schtick, but then again, I'm not willing to look at companies as more important or the most important part of society either.
- rquantz 11y ago
  This is why punishment for corporate law breaking needs to include revocation of the corporate charter after a point.

stephenr 11y ago

> companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started So, if it's inconvenient, you get to pretend it doesn't exist because you're a "startup"? That kind of mindset is what's wrong with the startup community. "Disrupt" isn't a synonym for "break any laws you don't like" and "startup" isn't a synonym for "I am above the law!"

a3n 11y ago
And "the law" is not the only measure of what's right. Just because it may end up being legal for Uber to discriminate against disabled doesn't mean they aren't major dicks. There's a fundamental rule for living in the world: Don't be a dick. Uber is breaking that rule, through sociopathic sophistry.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  there are many related fundamental rules, like "everyone is considered a dick by someone" and "you're a dick if you blame a group for the actions of a few." mainly, though, none of these are actually rules because your subjective notion of what being a dick means isn't transferable outside of your head, even if it really, really feels like your opinions are right.
  - a3n 11y ago
    But by saying it, I hope to convince others. Because I really, really want "defending a corporation's right to condone and tolerate disabled discrimination" to be seen as being a dick.
maxlybbert 11y ago
In New York, there are thousands of wheelchair accessible taxis ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/accessible.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/accessible.shtml ), but there are also thousands of taxis that aren't wheelchair accessible. The ones that aren't accessible aren't breaking the ADA (then again, the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation," so the ones that aren't wheelchair accessible probably still have to make an effort to put a wheelchair in the trunk, if requested).

jmcdonald-ut 11y ago

Thank you for this quote. I often think that this gets overlooked in our industry, and I'm no exception. A recent Hanselminutes podcast[1] touched on this. It pointed to a great resource[2]. 1. http://hanselminutes.com/475/accessibility-a11y-with-opendirectives-steve-lee http://hanselminutes.com/475/accessibility-a11y-with-opendir... 2. http://a11yproject.com/ http://a11yproject.com/

Frondo 11y ago

It's funny how you call it "accessibility issues" when others would (rightly) call it "obeying the law".

goatforce5 11y ago
Well Uber is trying to say the law doesn't apply to them. Let's say that they find a technicality that means the law doesn't actually apply to them, should they address the underlying issue or not? Presumably they should be saying "We will fix this issue regardless of whether we're obliged to by law or not."