A few years ago I read about a group of lawyers, the self-serving greedy bastard kind of lawyers, that went around finding websites with accessibility violations and would file suit against them. With the way the laws are written the cases were slam dunks. The lawyers didn't actually care about the violations, it was just a way to make a quick buck. It would be a shame if reddit had to face a swarm of those piranhas.
You posted an image without alt-text in a thread about blind folks? Really?
Shame.
To be fair that means we need to get those same lawyers to sue Lemmy for allowing that to happen.
Hopefully this is a slam dunk class action lawsuit.
Mods aren’t employees so the ADA wouldn’t apply here and constitute legal discrimination. Albeit this is pretty dang negligent from a business perspective.
ADA doesn't just apply to employer/employee relationships.
"The ADA is divided into four main sections, which are called Titles: Title I covers employment; Title II covers public entities and public transportation; Title III covers public accommodations and commercial facilities; and Title IV covers telecommunications"
I assumed the person I was responding to was talking about a violation of employer/employee regulations. When it comes to social media, I don’t believe the telecommunications pillar applies right?
Ya I don't think any of the sections apply. You are correct.
I’ve worked with (read: done a tiny amount of work with) accessibility compliance and you basically only need a “we’re working towards accessibility” disclaimer somewhere to be legally covered. Not sure how that works with blatant regressions like this, though; I imagine a case could be made that their statement is a lie.
Isn’t this a violation of the ADA?
A few years ago I read about a group of lawyers, the self-serving greedy bastard kind of lawyers, that went around finding websites with accessibility violations and would file suit against them. With the way the laws are written the cases were slam dunks. The lawyers didn't actually care about the violations, it was just a way to make a quick buck. It would be a shame if reddit had to face a swarm of those piranhas.
You posted an image without alt-text in a thread about blind folks? Really?
Shame.
To be fair that means we need to get those same lawyers to sue Lemmy for allowing that to happen.
Hopefully this is a slam dunk class action lawsuit.
Mods aren’t employees so the ADA wouldn’t apply here and constitute legal discrimination. Albeit this is pretty dang negligent from a business perspective.
ADA doesn't just apply to employer/employee relationships.
"The ADA is divided into four main sections, which are called Titles: Title I covers employment; Title II covers public entities and public transportation; Title III covers public accommodations and commercial facilities; and Title IV covers telecommunications"
I assumed the person I was responding to was talking about a violation of employer/employee regulations. When it comes to social media, I don’t believe the telecommunications pillar applies right?
Ya I don't think any of the sections apply. You are correct.
I’ve worked with (read: done a tiny amount of work with) accessibility compliance and you basically only need a “we’re working towards accessibility” disclaimer somewhere to be legally covered. Not sure how that works with blatant regressions like this, though; I imagine a case could be made that their statement is a lie.