That argument style is main thing that props up all sorts of discrimination. The truth is that applying the same rule to everyone often does not effect everyone the same way. You can argue about the rule being the same, but it’s generally more useful to focus on the effects.
I don’t think Spotify was created with deaf people in mind. It’s unfair to imply the company did this on purpose to worsen their lives. I bet they didn’t even think about this use-case. I agree that deaf people should be able to enjoy music, and Spotify can do something to help. But it’s not that simple. For example, how would they charge people who can hear, but offer the service for free to those who can’t? It’s not as easy as this post makes it seem. That’s why I wrote my first comment.
That argument style is main thing that props up all sorts of discrimination. The truth is that applying the same rule to everyone often does not effect everyone the same way. You can argue about the rule being the same, but it’s generally more useful to focus on the effects.
I don’t think Spotify was created with deaf people in mind. It’s unfair to imply the company did this on purpose to worsen their lives. I bet they didn’t even think about this use-case. I agree that deaf people should be able to enjoy music, and Spotify can do something to help. But it’s not that simple. For example, how would they charge people who can hear, but offer the service for free to those who can’t? It’s not as easy as this post makes it seem. That’s why I wrote my first comment.
This is why large companies have an ethical responsibility to hire diversity consultants to explain these kinds of issues to them.
And the equal treatment decision is to let everyone read the lyrics.