this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
1093 points (99.1% liked)

Privacy

32456 readers
402 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't really use facebook anymore so couldn't care less; but so happened to log in today to change my password and saw this on my front page.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 152 points 1 year ago (4 children)

if ads were just static PNGs with a link you went to if you clicked I wouldn't have ever bothered. but ads became a major malware and tracking risk so plugging that security hole became mandatory.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I tried finding that website, but I can't remember what it is. I've seen it use the static image advertisement. It changed on each reload too.

But yes, that website had last update somewhere in the early 2000s.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

When I last used it a few years ago ExplainXKCD used static images and had a note about how they hand picked each ad to avoid any problems.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are gonna say I'm being hyperbolic or crazy, but I swear that the internet died the day the first line of production Javascript was ever written.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The internet died in September 1994 everybody knows that

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Hey, that's not too far away. Javascript came about in December 1995.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even static PNG ads are purpose engineered to grab your attention. People with attention disorders like ADHD and autism don't have as much attention to give, and when it's gone we're debilitated. We need to start considering cognitohazards a legally prosecutable form of violence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could attention grabbing dark-features be considered a violation of the ADA?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Which part of it, specifically?

Edit: No, the ADA word not apply. My point was that you should understand the ADA a bit better and what it covers. Accessing a building open to the public, not facing discrimination in employment, and accommodations in education environments are examples of things it covers. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but don't just guess or generalize. Please try and understand the topic a bit more as it's a very important piece of legislation that makes a big difference in a lot of lives and treating it lightly dilutes that in a similar fashion to emotional support alligators vs trained service animals.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Did you really just compare accommodations for ADHD to “emotional support alligators?”

I am not a lawyer, but there is precedent for ADHD to be covered under the ADA and precedent that it (meaning the ADA) applies to websites for private businesses.

Edit: ADHD fits the definition of a disability as defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA, specifically:

  • 1a: it’s a mental impairment
  • 2a1: it affects: learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
  • 3B: it’s not transitory/lasts longer than 6 months

Edit 2: a lawyer could argue that adblocking is an assistive technology for people with ADHD. If a person is looking at a tutorial at work and is inundated with ads that effect their performance at work that they can not block using an adblocker, that is denying a person with a disability as (defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA) the full and equal (to a person who is neurotypical and can more easily not get distracted) use of a title III entities service.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for taking it seriously, that's what I was looking for.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I do have a disability covered by the ADA. I understand that ADHD is a recognized disability. That's not the specifics I was looking for.

That being said, the ADA doesn't define how to make a website accessible and that typically falls to the WCAG, which is not specifically mentioned in the ADA (though neither is ADHD, those cases you mentioned confirmed it is covered). The best things I can find than might cover the specifics of ads are maybe section 2.2.2 or 2.2.4 or 2.4.1 of the WCAG (the first and last are level A, the middle AAA, with the standard recommendation being AA.). How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side. Examples for 2.4.1 given by W3C just seem to specify a way to move past things like ads via a link.

Also, some interesting other things:

This mentions the following and cites the case on their site:

For example, a web-only service with no nexus to a physical place of public accommodation is not subject to the ADA under Ninth Circuit precedent.

I'm not sure if that's changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.

I'm all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don't think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don't think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.

How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side.

Probably under WCAG Principle 4: "Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies." If we're treating ad blocking as an assistive technology, purposely attempting to break an assistive technology would run counter to that principle, much in the same way that purposefully breaking a screen reader would (although, it should go with out saying, purposefully breaking screen readability is much worse).

I'm not sure if that's changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.

I'm wondering if legal action is something that could be done on a state by state basis starting with California (which conveniently is where Google is headquartered) or if the case could be made that Youtube is used to stream live events and those events should count as a physical nexus under the ADA.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’m assuming that addictive ui designs fuck with people with ADHD disproportionally. Since ADHD is considered a disability, could things like infinite scroll that can’t be turned off (for example) be considered an ADA violation?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A violation of which part of the ADA? Can you point an a specific part of the law that would cover it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was the question posed, yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And remains unanswered. The ADA is real law with real text; it doesn't just mean whatever someone wants it to. So I'm asking, in the text freely available at https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/, where is the part that would apply in this case. There's even other parts of that site that break things down in laymen's terms. If the person doesn't understand the ADA, the opportunity to learn a little about what it does and does not cover is available.