I don’t really use facebook anymore so couldn’t care less; but so happened to log in today to change my password and saw this on my front page.

  • Scroll Responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org
    6·
    1 year ago

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

    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.

    • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
      2·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for taking it seriously, that’s what I was looking for.

      I’m also not a lawyer, but I do have a disability covered by the ADA. I understand that ADHD is a recognized disability. That’s not the specifics I was looking for.

      That being said, the ADA doesn’t define how to make a website accessible and that typically falls to the WCAG, which is not specifically mentioned in the ADA (though neither is ADHD, those cases you mentioned confirmed it is covered). The best things I can find than might cover the specifics of ads are maybe section 2.2.2 or 2.2.4 or 2.4.1 of the WCAG (the first and last are level A, the middle AAA, with the standard recommendation being AA.). 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. Examples for 2.4.1 given by W3C just seem to specify a way to move past things like ads via a link.

      Also, some interesting other things:

      This mentions the following and cites the case on their site:

      For example, a web-only service with no nexus to a physical place of public accommodation is not subject to the ADA under Ninth Circuit precedent.

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

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

      • Scroll Responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org
        2·
        1 year ago

        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.