Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Tek say vote's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Jay

@tek Arguing adblockers are an assistive device may be a hard sell; they could just argue that adblockers themselves aren’t illegal, so a site that refuses to load content because it sees you have an adblocker is akin to a private business turning you away at the door because you wear sneakers.

You may have better luck with arguing that flashing/moving, bright images are negatively affecting the quality of life/endangering people with disabilities for ads in public areas.

4 June at 22:52 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.online
3 comments
Tek say vote

@WhiteCatTamer One of those doesn’t preclude the other.

And the counter might be that it’s closer to a business turning you away at the door because you have crutches.

4 June at 22:54 | Open on freeradical.zone
Jay

@tek Not really, since:
1) Crutches are a previously recognized medical device and
2) People who do not require crutches rarely use them and
3) Crutches do not, by themselves, reduce visibility

You can argue that this is aimed at changing 1, but you’d be hard pressed to argue that most people who use ad blockers have a diagnosed AD(H)D disability. Their ubiquity would point away from that.

4 June at 22:59 | Open on mastodon.online
Go Up