[blaqsmith]

The deaf community has been nothing short of begging Netflix to add captions for over 5 years now, and have essentially been ignored the entire time. The usual excuse was that it was technically impossible to add the captions (bs, really).

In the last year or so they've made slight motions towards implementing ~some~ captions, but have done a very bad job of it. Most shows would just have random episodes captioned. So you start a new show, then a few episodes into the season realize you couldn't keep watching them in order because the next few episodes were uncaptioned. To say that this is frustrating, especially for an arc based show like Lost (which was their flagship example of "we are captioning for you!" for the longest time) is an understatement.

This lawsuit is essentially the deaf community having reached a boiling point. These were patient people who tried for the longest time to get Netflix to act like a decent company, and it just didn't happen. It's rather sad that without this lawsuit, they probably never would.

[jdludlow]

They should probably stop sending Netflix $8 per month and support a competitor instead.

It's absurd that a private business can be forced via lawyers to offer a particular product. "We don't want to" should be allowed in a free society.

[lukifer]

In principle, I agree with you. On the other hand, what is the difference between "We don't want to offer captions" and "We don't want to build wheelchair ramps"? How about "We don't want to serve or hire [ethnicity]"?

[thecoffman]

In a free society all of those things WOULD be allowed. And most of us sane, rational people would opt not to give those discriminatory companies money. That's what freedom actually is. Its having the freedom to be an asshole, bigot or racist, and its my freedom not to support that kind of behavior with my wallet.

But yes, I agree, there isn't a big difference there, and personally I'm of the opinion that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating any of it.

[dodo53]

it pushes a lot of work on consumers - you need a lot of information/research to know who you can buy from (and if you're being strict you'd have to follow their supplier chain also for your opinion to affect all the B2B companies).

I feel like that already with sweatshops/child labour already - you hear a couple big companies when it hits mass media, but it's no doubt widely spread, so boycotting scandalised company of the day might not be effective (and just incentivise better PR/press control).

[dablya]

"And most of us sane, rational people would opt not to give those discriminatory companies money."

I still remember all those "whites only" stores going out of business in the 50s...

[mrj]

Sounds nice but look at the history of business. Laissez faire was attempted and didn't work out so great.

Sometimes there need to be rules and they need to be applied evenly so nobody has an advantage that others don't. If one business has to build wheelchair ramps or close caption while another doesn't, that's an unfair advantage.

You can dislike government all you want, but don't pretend these things we have would magically occur without some kind of intervention.

[thecoffman]

Obviously this isn't the forum to get into an economics debate, so I'll just leave it at this: we have never, ever had true "Laissez faire" free markets. We have always had corporatism/corporate capitalism. There is a very distinct difference between the two. I am arguing in the theoretical "given a truly free market" but we don't have such a thing, and never had, so it truly is theoretical. Given the current situation I largely agree with you - given the right circumstances however, I do think true freedom would work.

[woodson]

"Rational people" would weight the costs and benefits of finding out which companies have discriminatory policies and might decide that they just don't care enough for spending their time on it.

[gkjam]

Unfortunately, disabled individuals "voting with their dollar" will likely not be enough of an impact to cause Netflix to alter their business practice. That's why laws to protect minorities exist, because when left to the free market, such minorities cannot exert enough market force to prevent being discriminated against. There are minority groups that we protect against discrimination as a civilized society, and disabled individuals are one such.

[xbryanx]

That would have potentially have been a valid point to bring up in 1990 when George H. W. Bush signed the ADA into federal law, but it's not appropriate anymore that it's the law of the land. Should businesses be allowed to ignore physical mobility impairments, and not install ramps?

[gaius]

Actually, yes, and the reason is, if the disabled (and being able-bodied is only a temporary situation, for everyone) took their business elsewhere, those companies would lose business to those that of their own free choice did install whatever accessibility.

It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads.

[Klinky]

History has shown that people do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. This is why we have food safety, fire codes, building codes, worker safety, privacy & disability laws.

Most regulatory laws come from chronic & rampant abuse. The fantasy land of free market ideology assumes that all important information is knowable & understandable in an instant, when that is rarely if ever the case. It also overestimates the power of a boycott or that a company will even understand that they're being boycotted or why.

What if all the disabled people in a town took their business away from Cafe A that didn't have disabled access & go to Cafe B. Given that Cafe A is extremely popular with non-disabled people, they eventually get enough money to expand. They buyout Cafe B, remodel w/o the disabled access & now there are no cafes that are disabled accessible. Has the market failed or has the market basically said "you don't matter disabled people, suck it".

[kenjackson]

It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads.

It might be better, but it's not realistic. You might be surprised at the amount of violent crime that doesn't happen because of the law.

And the free market dynamics are just not effective in cases such as for the disabled. It may not be financially possible for a small company to cater to disabled customers -- this is why the law usually requires a business of a certain size. But once you hit a certain size you can afford to accomodate the disabled.

Now you're saying that a big company can say, "We don't allow disabled access", but small companies who may want to target them may not be able to afford it at all. So now you have a situation where the disabled aren't served at all because the big companies won't do it, and the small companies can't afford to.

[finisterre]

ADA is needed because the number of disabled people in the US isn't large enough for the free market/competition process to play out as you suggest. It will never be economically efficient for private enterprise to look after the needs of some groups, hence legislation is needed to ensure their needs are met.

[dodo53]

That requires people who are (temporarily) able-bodied to be sufficiently foresighted and activist-y - I'm not sure consumer boycotts frequently work (either due to lack of information or coordination or it being too much effort).

I agree I'd like the market to sort it out instead of law, but I don't think it's realistic. Consider access ramps/elevator requirements for example - if a fairly significant chunk of key businesses (say supermarket, banks, workplaces, transport) in an area don't all have them, the area becomes practically uninhabitable by people in wheelchairs.

[safeaim]

Maybe a stupid way of putting it, but given the fact that only a small percentage of the US are physically disabled, will their boycott have any impact at all?

[gaius]

We all grow old. That's what I mean when I say being able-bodied is only temporary.

[ericd]

Am I required to change my product to make everyone happy, or capable of using it? It might make business sense, but it very well might not.

[sigzero]

Netflix IS working on it. There isn't any magic faerie dust to make it happen. 30% of their content has it now with a projected 80% by years end. That is pretty darn good. This is a cash grab pure and simple. I don't think the law applies to them as written anyway. Netflix isn't a "PLACE of entertainment" and you would be hard pressed to prove that in court.

[gkjam]

This lawsuit, and threat of litigation on behalf of disabled individuals, is the only reason why they've been making the relatively quicker process this year. This isn't a cash grab, this is simply the only tool disabled persons have to force Netflix to comply with the law and accommodate them.

[mirkules]

Interesting. I wish this article went into some of the history with Netflix and ADA compliance for people who know nothing about their past (like myself). Thanks for that insight.