Scroll Responsibly @ scroll_responsibly @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

42

Comments

330

Joined

2 yr. ago

🫡

That’s my profile picture 🤣!

Defederate. Facebook is an existential threat to the fediverse as a concept and in reality.

Bring back the headphone jack.

It was much more akin to Black liberation (and even had some ties with the Black Panthers back in the 70s) and Irish republicanism than with American right wing nationalism. I know it’s easy to group all nationalisms together and brand them with MAGA, but liberation movements often branded themselves with the “nationalist” label.

Elon: more robots guys in gray body suits on order.

Nope, in the article it shows a hard coded 5 second delay.

What is up with 196 and the Unabomber. Mods removed another post a few weeks ago and yet here we are.

Reminder, apart from being a murderer, that guy was also a homophobe, a racist, and an all around bigot.

It’s likely the upgrade was an attempt to fix federation

Have you dm’d them?

I'm all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don't think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.

How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side.

Probably under WCAG Principle 4: "Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies." If we're treating ad blocking as an assistive technology, purposely attempting to break an assistive technology would run counter to that principle, much in the same way that purposefully breaking a screen reader would (although, it should go with out saying, purposefully breaking screen readability is much worse).

I'm not sure if that's changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.

I'm wondering if legal action is something that could be done on a state by state basis starting with California (which conveniently is where Google is headquartered) or if the case could be made that Youtube is used to stream live events and those events should count as a physical nexus under the ADA.

Please see my response above which addresses your points using case law.

Did you really just compare accommodations for ADHD to “emotional support alligators?”

• Here is a case establishing precedent that ADHD is a disability under the ADA.
• Here is another
• Here is the DOJs website which lists case precedent for the requirement of Title III entities (private businesses open to the public) to have accessible websites).

I am not a lawyer, but there is precedent for ADHD to be covered under the ADA and precedent that it (meaning the ADA) applies to websites for private businesses.

Edit: ADHD fits the definition of a disability as defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA, specifically:

• 1a: it’s a mental impairment
• 2a1: it affects: learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
• 3B: it’s not transitory/lasts longer than 6 months

Edit 2: a lawyer could argue that adblocking is an assistive technology for people with ADHD. If a person is looking at a tutorial at work and is inundated with ads that effect their performance at work that they can not block using an adblocker, that is denying a person with a disability as (defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA) the full and equal (to a person who is neurotypical and can more easily not get distracted) use of a title III entities service.

I’m assuming that addictive ui designs fuck with people with ADHD disproportionally. Since ADHD is considered a disability, could things like infinite scroll that can’t be turned off (for example) be considered an ADA violation?

Pis party is really living up to their name.

Could attention grabbing dark-features be considered a violation of the ADA?

🫡

more like delayed

Traders are private sector lol.