• @grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it’s a free account or a paid one. It’s either always required or it’s never required, but it sure as Hell is not “their prerogative” based on how much they get paid.

    Think about it for a second: what the parent commenter is suggesting is that it’s somehow okay for a company to use compliance with legal requirements as an upselling opportunity! You do see the problem with that line of thinking, right?!

    • @null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -25 months ago

      I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it’s a free account or a paid one.

      Which is completely irrelevant if its not actually a requirement. So I’m asking you to prove that it is.

      • @grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -35 months ago

        What’s relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it’s Spotify’s “prerogative” whether to comply with the law or not. It isn’t.

        This issue here is people spouting dangerous late-stage-capitalist nonsense, not the content of the ADA rule. Your demand is actually just a derailment tactic.

        • @SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The person agreeing with you has literally said they can claim they don’t make enough and not need to comply with ADA laws…. Apparantly…. So yeah they can just choose to not comply. This is from someone working directly with them, so we have to accept this is true I guess.

        • @null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -25 months ago

          What’s relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it’s Spotify’s “prerogative” whether to comply with the law or not. It isn’t.

          No they did not. You brought up the law.