But the feature works exactly the same for deaf and not deaf people, we’ve established that already. Well, at least you agreed that you were lying and manipulating. I will take the win.
That argument style is main thing that props up all sorts of discrimination. The truth is that applying the same rule to everyone often does not effect everyone the same way. You can argue about the rule being the same, but it’s generally more useful to focus on the effects.
I don’t think Spotify was created with deaf people in mind. It’s unfair to imply the company did this on purpose to worsen their lives. I bet they didn’t even think about this use-case. I agree that deaf people should be able to enjoy music, and Spotify can do something to help. But it’s not that simple. For example, how would they charge people who can hear, but offer the service for free to those who can’t? It’s not as easy as this post makes it seem. That’s why I wrote my first comment.
I don’t think Spotify was created with deaf people in mind.
That would be the problem.
how would they charge people who can hear, but offer the service for free to those who can’t?
This sounds like an engineering problem. Account types, customer service, some kind of medical qualification proving it, I don’t know.
They could also just… not separate lyrics from the free-tier at all.
I mean, painfully missing from this discussion is that hiding the lyrics of the song you’re listening to, which they definitely have, behind a paywall is… absolutely bizarre.
To my ears, this is like finding out Spotify’s new free-tier model limits song listens to exactly 2 minutes, and if the song is longer than that, “well, you can listen to the whole thing with a new Premium subscription!” Yeah, I guess I could, huh. God forbid we have anything nice in this country.
But the feature works exactly the same for deaf and not deaf people, we’ve established that already. Well, at least you agreed that you were lying and manipulating. I will take the win.
That argument style is main thing that props up all sorts of discrimination. The truth is that applying the same rule to everyone often does not effect everyone the same way. You can argue about the rule being the same, but it’s generally more useful to focus on the effects.
I don’t think Spotify was created with deaf people in mind. It’s unfair to imply the company did this on purpose to worsen their lives. I bet they didn’t even think about this use-case. I agree that deaf people should be able to enjoy music, and Spotify can do something to help. But it’s not that simple. For example, how would they charge people who can hear, but offer the service for free to those who can’t? It’s not as easy as this post makes it seem. That’s why I wrote my first comment.
This is why large companies have an ethical responsibility to hire diversity consultants to explain these kinds of issues to them.
And the equal treatment decision is to let everyone read the lyrics.
That would be the problem.
This sounds like an engineering problem. Account types, customer service, some kind of medical qualification proving it, I don’t know.
They could also just… not separate lyrics from the free-tier at all.
I mean, painfully missing from this discussion is that hiding the lyrics of the song you’re listening to, which they definitely have, behind a paywall is… absolutely bizarre.
To my ears, this is like finding out Spotify’s new free-tier model limits song listens to exactly 2 minutes, and if the song is longer than that, “well, you can listen to the whole thing with a new Premium subscription!” Yeah, I guess I could, huh. God forbid we have anything nice in this country.