• 0 Posts
  • 653 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
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in (can no longer be evaded during a court case or an audit) dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.

    As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under (no longer receive any exemption 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.


  • MajorHavoc@programming.devtoFuck Subscriptions@lemmy.worldEat shit Spotify.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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 far more informed opinion than that of a couple of asshats who were replying to me in this thread.)