• 3 Posts
  • 872 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 3rd, 2024

help-circle
  • MajorHavoc@programming.devtoFuck Subscriptions@lemmy.worldEat shit Spotify.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 minutes ago

    Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.

    As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.

    Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undo burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.

    While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.


  • You are technically correct - the best kind of correct! (Futurama quote, meaning I appreciate your correction.)

    It’s probably not an issue for a station that simply doesn’t have that level of captioning, yet.

    But I take your point - it would likely be a violation if they had that captioning and tried to monetize it. (In my substantially professionally trained but still non-expert opinion.)





  • MajorHavoc@programming.devtoFuck Subscriptions@lemmy.worldEat shit Spotify.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    it’s their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service.

    Except that this attempt could easily be shown to largely land on folks with accessibility needs. That’s a big no-no under many laws.

    An interesting comparison is pay-to-ride elevators. For most folks an elevator is a nice convenience they would not mind occasionally paying for.

    But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.



  • MajorHavoc@programming.devtoFuck Subscriptions@lemmy.worldEat shit Spotify.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Providing a substantially inferior outcome to someone with an ADA need absolutely violates ADA rules.

    When stuff like this has gone to court it hasn’t been pretty for the offending organization.

    There’s a bigger question about how much of what Spotify currently provides falls under ADA. Web services used to get a free pass. They largely don’t anymore.

    Source: some of this stuff is my problem, professionally. And no, I’m not going to look up a primary source for anyone. That’s Spotify’s lawyers job.










  • I’ll take “Organizations that made it to the top by doing something different, only to fall under leadership that doesn’t understand what made them successful and descend into ruins” for 200, Alex.

    Seriously, Jeopardy team - this is a rich category:

    • Netflix advertisements.
    • Zoom mandates staff return to offices.
    • Microsoft forgets what the “P” in “PC” stands for.
    • Toys R Us implements a shitty holiday gift returns policy.
    • Sears decides to sacrifice reputation for quarterly stock price gains.
    • Walgreens decides bottom-of-the-barrel incompetent pharmacists can uphold their “get it all done in one visit” secret sauce.
    • Radio Shack decides that once-every-two-years cellphone contract sales are the future for holding passionate electronics hobbyists’ loyalty.