• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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?

    • MajorHavoc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months 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.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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!

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I have, it doesn’t say what you’re claiming, so please, provide the links since I can’t find it. Or the more likely answer, it doesn’t exist and now you’re insulting me since I’ve called out your lack of actual education. You can’t just make a claim and not provide a source lmfao, that’s trolling.

            It’s always funny when a phony tries to play big leagues when actual people with education are already available.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Got a source please?

          Of course they don’t.

          But they’re going to pretend that its on you to disprove the claim.

          Edit: Oh look, they did exactly what I said they would.