I was about the question how the ADA would apply to websites but then I bothered to check. I am surprised at how broadly the DoJ applies the “businesses open to the public” definition.
I think this is a good thing but I wonder at what threshold do they enforce this. If I decide to self-host some wiki on the most esoteric lore behind the game of Lemmings for my audience of six people, can I be fined and/or forced to shut down because my website doesn’t adhere to the ADA guidelines for website accessibility? Because I’m an untalented hack who can barely stand up an instance of WordPress I am not allowed to publicly present anything on the internet?
I’m sure there is nuance to this but I couldn’t find it. I’m not being hyperbolic either, I’m genuinely curious. I feel like this is the cops shutting down a 10 year old’s lemonade stand because they don’t have a license or health certificate. (Shaky analogy but you know what I’m driving at.)
If none of the 6 users are blind or been asking for accommodations, I think you’re good. But the blind community literally put Reddit on notice that, if 3rd party apps are forced to shutter and the official app doesn’t have accommodations, then the blind won’t be able to continue to use the site.
This seems like a cut and dried case to me. Reddit should not have forced out the 3PA until they had a plan to handle the disabled users. Instead, they figuratively gave the blind the finger and went ahead full speed, KNOWING (because the blind users had already put them on notice) that Reddit was going to be unusable for this group. This seems like textbook discrimination.
Not a lawyer, but your six-person site might be protected because it’s so small. There are some laws that have to be enforced no matter how small the violation, but the penalty might be proportional to the size of violation, but there are also laws where the case just gets thrown out if no one is actually harmed. I don’t know which it is in this case, but either way, I suspect no one bothers picking a legal fight super-tiny sites unless they have personal beef with the owner.
I was about the question how the ADA would apply to websites but then I bothered to check. I am surprised at how broadly the DoJ applies the “businesses open to the public” definition.
I think this is a good thing but I wonder at what threshold do they enforce this. If I decide to self-host some wiki on the most esoteric lore behind the game of Lemmings for my audience of six people, can I be fined and/or forced to shut down because my website doesn’t adhere to the ADA guidelines for website accessibility? Because I’m an untalented hack who can barely stand up an instance of WordPress I am not allowed to publicly present anything on the internet?
I’m sure there is nuance to this but I couldn’t find it. I’m not being hyperbolic either, I’m genuinely curious. I feel like this is the cops shutting down a 10 year old’s lemonade stand because they don’t have a license or health certificate. (Shaky analogy but you know what I’m driving at.)
A wiki on the esoteric lore of Lemmings isn’t a business.
It is if your audience of 6 each pays you $1500 a month.
If none of the 6 users are blind or been asking for accommodations, I think you’re good. But the blind community literally put Reddit on notice that, if 3rd party apps are forced to shutter and the official app doesn’t have accommodations, then the blind won’t be able to continue to use the site.
This seems like a cut and dried case to me. Reddit should not have forced out the 3PA until they had a plan to handle the disabled users. Instead, they figuratively gave the blind the finger and went ahead full speed, KNOWING (because the blind users had already put them on notice) that Reddit was going to be unusable for this group. This seems like textbook discrimination.
Not a lawyer, but your six-person site might be protected because it’s so small. There are some laws that have to be enforced no matter how small the violation, but the penalty might be proportional to the size of violation, but there are also laws where the case just gets thrown out if no one is actually harmed. I don’t know which it is in this case, but either way, I suspect no one bothers picking a legal fight super-tiny sites unless they have personal beef with the owner.