You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points
*

They can provide lyrics, most have websites, they can print a pamphlet, that’s just excuses to justify crying out against one and not the other.

What makes them unable to, but Spotify able to?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.

What…? The laws applies to everyone, you can’t just claim I can’t afford it. Got a source please?

As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.

Where was this pointed out? Most don’t, and the few that do just link to other places, something Spotify could do to with what you’re claiming. Why do they need to provide the actual words when radios don’t? Another source on this would be great. You’re already saying the laws apply differently, but are the same? You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times already….

Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undue burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.

Source that’s a thing.

While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.

So I can just claim I don’t make enough and not need to follow any ADA laws? That doesn’t sound right, even non-profits get riddled with ads claims, so again, source please!

We all know you’re talking out of your ass, so yeah I don’t expect any actual response, so enjoy your weekend troll!

permalink
report
parent
reply

Fuck Subscriptions

!fucksubscriptions@lemmy.world

Create post

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

 

Community stats

  • 281

    Monthly active users

  • 62

    Posts

  • 351

    Comments