838
Eat shit Spotify. (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] null@slrpnk.net 16 points 4 months ago

ADA accessibility requirements for their public accommodations

Source that providing lyrics to songs is a requirement?

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it's a free account or a paid one. It's either always required or it's never required, but it sure as Hell is not "their prerogative" based on how much they get paid.

Think about it for a second: what the parent commenter is suggesting is that it's somehow okay for a company to use compliance with legal requirements as an upselling opportunity! You do see the problem with that line of thinking, right?!

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 4 months ago

I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it's a free account or a paid one.

Which is completely irrelevant if its not actually a requirement. So I'm asking you to prove that it is.

[-] grue@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

What's relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it's Spotify's "prerogative" whether to comply with the law or not. It isn't.

This issue here is people spouting dangerous late-stage-capitalist nonsense, not the content of the ADA rule. Your demand is actually just a derailment tactic.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The person agreeing with you has literally said they can claim they don’t make enough and not need to comply with ADA laws…. Apparantly…. So yeah they can just choose to not comply. This is from someone working directly with them, so we have to accept this is true I guess.

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 4 months ago

What's relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it's Spotify's "prerogative" whether to comply with the law or not. It isn't.

No they did not. You brought up the law.

[-] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 5 points 4 months 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.

[-] null@slrpnk.net -3 points 4 months ago

So no, just talking out of your ass then.

You can Google the lyrics to songs on any device you can view them on Spotify.

If you could google the subtitles to any film or tv show, should that absolve Netflix of the responsibility to provide them?

[-] null@slrpnk.net -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Do lyrics fall under the same regulation as subtitles? If Netflix were free, would it still be subject to those requirements?

Perhaps they should. Let's join hands, friend. I believe we can change things for the better.

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 4 months ago

You obviously don't give a shit, dude, I don't know why it matters to you so much that people want their lyrics back. Do you own stock in Spotify or something?

[-] null@slrpnk.net -1 points 4 months ago

I don't know why you can't just provide proof for the claim you're defending.

Proof of what, social good will?

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 4 months ago

You're lost. Go back to the top and try again.

I don't care about the technicalities of the ADA, dude. You can jerk off to legal documents all you want, I want lyrics to songs for deaf people, a feature that already exists.

If they don't require it, they should. I already asked you to take my hand on this. But, you don't care because you like it when deaf people suffer.

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 4 months ago

I don't care about the technicalities of the ADA

Then you're replying to the wrong thread, genius.

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
838 points (89.0% liked)

Fuck Subscriptions

3650 readers
1 users here now

Naming and shaming all "recurring spending models" where a one-time fee (or none at all) would be appropriate and logical.

Expect use of strong language.

Follow the basic rules of lemmy.world and common sense, and try to have fun if possible.

No flamewars or attacking other users, unless they're spineless corporate shills.

Note that not all subscriptions are awful. Supporting your favorite ~~camgirl~~ creator or Lemmy server on Patreon is fine. An airbag with subscription is irl Idiocracy-level dystopian bullshit.

New community rule: Shilling for cunty corporations, their subscriptions and other anti-customer practices may result in a 1-day ban. It's so you can think about what it's like when someone can randomly decide what you can and can't use, based on some arbitrary rules. Oh what, you didn't read this fine print? You should read what you're agreeing to.

==========

Some other groovy communities for those who wish to own their products, their data and their life:

Right to Repair/Ownership

Hedges Development

Privacy

Privacy Guides

DeGoogle Yourself

F-Droid

Stallman Was Right

Some other useful links:

FreeMediaHeckYeah

Louis Rossman's YouTube channel

Look at content hosted at Big Tech without most of the nonsense:

Piped

Invidious

Nitter

Teddit

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS