Age verification

Maybe so, but it’s a big maybe. Remember, corporations like these have far more resources than any individual. Unless it’s a class action, one person going up against them is fighting with a toothpick against a tank. Technically it’s possible, but it would take years, the right legal team, and frankly a perfect storm of circumstances to even stand a chance. And even then? Most cases don’t go the distance. They get settled. Why? Because it’s easier for a company to quietly throw a pile of cash at someone than to overhaul their system or admit fault. That’s the game — and they’ve mastered it.

The problem is, let’s be honest — the people we vote into power rarely care about things like this. And even when they do? Sooner or later, the system chews them up. Power corrupts, greed creeps in, and the issues they once cared about get tossed aside. The only real shot at something like this being handled right? Is if someone disabled, or someone who has a disabled member in the family or relative etc someone who actually cares and has seen the struggle of said disabled family member first hand, holds that power. Otherwise? Don’t hold your breath. The system isn’t designed to protect you — it’s designed to protect itself.

Hi Lee,
I've read they're not going to ban VPNs for the time being at least, because the government uses them. But I suppose they could always implement legislation that only allows certain people to use them. You could never ban them outright anyway, because apparently people can create their own VPN if they know what they're doing. But I've heard that people promoting the use of VPNs could get fined. As for the RNIB, as it's a tech issue, it might be worth writing to the RNIB Tech Talk podcast to highlight the issue. I don't know how good or successful the RNIB as an organisation are at suing and getting results. I get the impression the NFB in the US are much better at that sort of thing.

AS stated above, to sue, you have to have a cause of action. To elaborate, we don't put you on trial for a criminal offence of...being not very nice. NO no, you're on trial for theft, murder, manslaughter and so on. If there is discrimination here, it is indirect discrimination butt arguably objectively justified or unavoidable indirect discrimination. Even then, most discrimination issues to be actionable must arise within the context of a particular cause of action e.g. claims for discrimination in respect of one's employment rights. Besides, it's not the RNIB being discriminated against so it could not sue. It is possible in certain circumstances for organisations to sue on behalf of individuals, but this only really works in something called proceedings for judicial review, which is not applicable to the scenario you legal eagles are war-gaming. Group Litigation Orders can be made in this country to simulate US class actions but only where there is an underlying cause of action and even then very, very rarely. The US is an anomaly in its trigger-happiness for kings of torts, luckily. So I'm far from convinced that there would be a cause of action and if there were, it would be a case fraught with difficulty. Besides, whom do you want the RNIB to sue?

On the RNIB NFB comparison, note that the RNIB is a charity and therefore has to be mindful of litigation it initiates, partly to remain within the law of charities and partly because it is funded by private donations. How much are you willing to give the RNIB to fight the case for you on the basis that costs would probably run into the millions by the time it reached the Supreme Court, as it probably would?

No no, you can't litigate yourself to Voiceover compatibility, folks. Best get on the side of those of us digging out ridiculous mainstream examples of how the Act does not work.

While I'm on my feet, Mr Speaker, which merchant started the ball rolling about banning VPNS? I refer the Honourable Lady, or Gentleman as the case may be, to the government's own internet security advice, which advises individuals to use a VPN when, for example, connecting to an unsecure wireless network. That's before we even get started on the fact that most companies worth their salt, to say nothing of government departments, local authorities, charities including the dear old RNIB (I'm guessing), and so on, have corporte VPNs for all their employees busy sherking from home to access. Banning VPNs would be like trying to take the eggs out of a cake. I suppose Peter Kyle would say that in making that observation I am on the side of...erm.... Dr Harold Shipman?

There is hope, folks, there is a better way: I have just seen a poll from More in common who have found that 75% of the public think the savile remark was inappropriate and that Peter Kyle should apologise. bit of a problem given they've doubled down on it since! Luckily for us, I think it's such a disastrously silly attempt to close the debate over this law's effectiveness down that it has achieved precisely the opposite and got folk having a serious look at what they previously assumed would be a good guys' law to protect kids from harmful online content.

Hi Bingo,
Well personally, I'm not bothered about the RNIB suing anybody or not, because I don't agree with this law in the first place. I can't advocate for making something accessible if I don't even agree with the thing I want to be made accessible. It was a suggestion for how something could be forced to be made accessible, but obviously a bad one, since you know more about the law than I do. A quick solution to this would be to use Aira, get a sighted friend or family member to help you, or use a VPN. I'm all for quick solutions. I've always thought it would be quicker for me to find and implement a work-around for something, rather than writing to someone and explaining why something doesn't work and how it should work for me, rather than waiting for the next update or possible legal amendment to come along.

Interesting who decides what should be accessible and some who do not agree. As Mr. Spock stated, fascinating. The accessibility police now will decide.

aGreed, a quick call to aira to help you get round the age verification process will do very nicely, so long as the Aira volunteer realises that helping you puts them on the side of Jimmy Savile. Incidentally, it's so annoying how even in deploying this dim-witted analogy, Peter Kyle chose an entirely inappropriate analogy to deploy! savile never went online! Never in his life! He got up to what he got up to by means of the pillar of the establishment that is the BBC...the sort of activities the then Directof of Public Prosecutions' team failed to prosecute him for. what happened to that DPP afterwards - did he go on to do anything else? But to return to the topic, I agree that the law is woefully inadequate. There does have to be a solution to youngsters accessing inappropriate stuff online as Gen alpha is promising to be emotionally burnt out by the time they're 20, and that's in a best case scenario. This manifestly untechnological legislation is not the solution to a technological problem. at least building a solution from the ground up means accessibility stands a better chance.

It seems a long time ago that Lee started this post. Right now, my understanding is that the app appears to not be accessible but none of us have actually been forced to use it yet.

Has anyone tried to contact the company responsible yet? I don't know much about legal claims but I am reasonably sure you need to make a complaint to the company first and give them a chance to address the issues. It might be that they have no idea about the issue and would welcome the input. It might be that they are already trying to address it. Or it might be that they just don't give a monkey's. But as far as I know, we are just presuming the latter case.

The other thing being mentioned is to involve the RNIB which I think is a good idea. Much as I personally trust most of you on here, disgusting though you are apparently, we don't mean much in the grand scheme of things and having someone with a bit of authority do a more formal evaluation would be very helpful.

They might also have a better chance of getting a reply if they ask the question. If not, then the natural progression would be to mainstream media - UK news channels like BBC news for example, or even tech sites like the Verge as I mentioned before.

If we can get a bit of weight behind the question it will put as in a good position, and if we are still ignored then possibly the legal route can be looked at, but it would be a last resort.

All your companies would do would be to say, rightly, that they are doing what they have to do in obedience to an Act of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament can legislate in such a way as breaches human rights, if it wishes. the courts cannot strike down an act of Parliament. I'm afraid there's no work for lawyers here, apart from as campaign activists. who can sue? Sue in what? Sue whom? Asking for what remedy? How would such litigation be funded? Besides, aren't you sick of all these flamin' lawyers? YYou've got far more chance getting somewhere, seriously, if you write to the only man who has really mugged up on this law, namely zia Yousuf, and point out its indirectly discriminatory nature to him. In fact, that's the best idea anyone's had this side of the M25 - well done, Bingo old lad!

On the thread I’m reading here, it seems like they’re planning to check your emails for bank statements, credit card bills, utilities, and grocery receipts. But one of the issues I had a few years ago when trying to open a bank account was that I couldn’t provide proof of address because the bills weren’t in my name. I also needed a reference—someone already with the bank—who could vouch for me. They called this person to ask questions such as: What kind of person am I? Do I have good character? Can I be trusted to manage an account responsibly? On top of that, they wanted salary information. But how was I supposed to provide any of this when I didn’t even have a job yet? Eventually, I got through because I was part of a youth program for adults with disabilities. I filled out their forms, and that’s how I managed to open the account. But even then—on the exact day I went to open it—the bank had introduced a new policy: you now needed a letter from an employer, a school, or some institution to confirm that you were “trustworthy.” It was no longer only about the reference. If you can't work officially for whatever reason, you can't open a bank account. But what about sponsorships, or family friends who want to send you money from abroad to your bank account? That’s the problem with a lot of these systems. They assume your life is going to follow one clear path—school, job, bills in your name, smooth sailing. But that’s not how life goes for everyone, especially in our community. We’re constantly being told we have to be “smarter” or “stronger,” and somehow more independent than everyone else, just to be treated like we matter. But how am I supposed to “keep up” when they’re running with two legs and I’m trying to crawl through the same maze with one?
I’m not trying to whine or sound as if I’m complaining for the sake of it—but it is hard. It’s like people keep asking, “Why aren’t you fighting harder?” But fighting the system takes time, energy, money—and even when we do fight, a lot of the time, nothing changes. And if it backfires, we’re the ones who suffer the consequences, not the people in power. And yes, I absolutely agree with the point made earlier in this thread: unless there’s a reason for these companies or institutions to change—like losing money, reputation, or facing lawsuits—they’re not going to. We’re basically up against billion-dollar corporations, and while lawsuits might work in the U.S., they’re useless in a lot of other countries.
Pretty sure there was a young lady from our community who filed a lawsuit against one of the taxi companies—I’m not sure if it was Uber, but she won $100,000 because they refused to let her take her guide dog in the taxi. And yeah, that’s great. She absolutely deserved that compensation. But these are usually one-off situations, and I don’t know if anything has changed since then for guide dog users in general. What I’m trying to say is, even when we do stand up for ourselves, it often makes others feel like we’re either entitled, too difficult or not worth the effort. So even though she won, what happens to the rest of us? Is every single blind person supposed to press charges for the same kind of discrimination? What’s going to happen next—drivers start refusing to pick us up altogether because they don’t want to deal with the fear of a lawsuit, no matter how valid it is?
I’ve been doing advocacy work since I was a kid. I went on radio shows, TV programs. I’ve spoken to ministers of education, labor, social security—you name it. But no matter how much I talked, nothing substantial ever came out of it. I was trying to get on good morning America, but the implication based on their communication was, well, since we've had a couple blind persons on here already, we're not looking for anymore. That's the problem with media. They're looking for fresh and new stories to showcase to their audience, so When someone gets on a program, it doesn't mean that you, with the same disability, is gonna get on the program. If anything, it's a first come, first serve, environment, and since I didn't sing or play the piano, I wasn't TV material, I guess. Don't worry, guys, i'm not that dumb little 15-year-old girl anymore.
MrBeast came to Jamaica and built houses for folks in the rural areas. I’m assuming it was a humanitarian or philanthropic agreement of some kind, because to my knowledge, no government agencies were publicly involved. Anyway, the point I’m making is this: after the video was posted on YouTube, I called Food For the Poor to ask if there was any way I could get in contact with MrBeast or someone from his team—because logically, someone local must have a starting place regarding contact information, But the response I got was pretty discouraging. It was basically, “Well, you know… you’re only one person. And he already did a video restoring eyesight for blind people, so… what do you want exactly? Do you want your sight back? Or are you asking for money? Or is this about a job? Like, what exactly are you looking for? Because you’re one person, and we can’t give out any contact information. It’s private.” So I said, okay, if you can’t connect me to his team directly, could a member from Food For the Poor at least partner with me to reach out? And they asked, “Well, who’s backing you? What’s the point of all this? Is there an organization behind you?” So apparently, if you’re not already connected to a major organization or don’t have a whole campaign behind you, you’re not going to get any help. I don’t expect them to hand me MrBeast’s personal phone number, obviously, but if they already have the contact, and they could help, why not work with me? To be fair, I don't know when the video was filmed, and how much time there was before it was posted. I don't recall hearing that MrBeast was here. Like, you know, when persons, celebrities, influencers, when they're here, you generally see them touring the island and enjoying the local weather, and then you think to yourself, oh, there could be a future video, but there was none of that. How did the people in the video who got houses get chosen? What made them the eligible candidates above everyone else? Who did they talk to? Who did they reach out to? What was the process? Short of literally stalking the individuals on Facebook to figure out how they made the connection, i'm stuck. Was it a government representative? A Member of Parliament? A private benefactor? From the way that phone call went, it sounded like I was being selfish or hopeless for asking for myself—not on behalf of every blind person in Jamaica. I tried. And that’s a lot more than most would’ve done. I never thought MrBeast would end up in Jamaica. Most of the places that get that kind of spotlight are the U.S., Canada, the U.K., maybe a few countries in Africa. But Jamaica? That didn’t even seem like a possibility in my lifetime. But then it happened. And somehow—even after he came—I still don’t qualify. I get it though—the video was packaged and designed for a specific type of content, and that was it. I’m not saying I had all the right answers, or that I asked the questions in the best way. It’s always a learning experience for me. But the truth is, not every situation goes diplomatically. In fact, many of them don’t. A lot of the time, they end up being hurtful, frustrating, humiliating, embarrassing, and degrading.

To this day, I don’t qualify for disability benefits because I have “too many subjects.” That’s what they said. In the Caribbean, subjects are like high school credits, and I have 12 of them—certificates for history, sociology, communication studies. So apparently, I’m too educated to qualify for help. But I’m blind. All that education isn’t exactly helping me if I can’t access the basic services I need. So what was the point? Did I waste my time? The truth is—I want to help. I genuinely love this community and want us all to succeed in whatever way we can. I don’t think being blind should mean your life is harder by default. And yeah, sometimes there’s nothing wrong with receiving extra help. None of us asked for this. Especially those of us in developing countries. I’ve been fighting this system since I was old enough to realize it was broken. So when people come to me with talk about fairness and equality, they’re not saying anything I haven’t heard—or tried already. It’s not that I’ve given up, but we have to be honest. There are barriers. And it’s not always about willpower. Sometimes we’re losing the fight. I’ve lost a lot. I’ve lost energy, time, money, and opportunities. And when you try to speak up or fight back, you risk making your own life even harder. People close doors. They label you as “difficult.” They move your name to the bottom of the list, or worse, they start redistributing resources meant for you to others. I’ve had sponsorship items—like laptops—taken away and given to other students, without my knowledge, because apparently, I “already had enough.” Sure, I might be intelligent and well spoken, but these are the same qualities holding me back, instead of lifting me up. Let me give you a final example. When I was attending that school for adults with disabilities, one of the students—she was probably in her late 40s or 50s—pulled a government minister aside and begged him privately for 5000 Jamaican dollars (around 30 US dollars). She claimed it was a personal matter, but the way it happened made the rest of us look bad. I don’t expect everyone to get along, but pulling each other down? That can’t be the way forward either.

As usual, theories of conspiracy are dissolved when competence is considered. We give the government far too much credit, thinking they have the capacity to be so cunning.

Assuming that this age verification process works for a sighted person, then I don't personally believe that it should be much different for us. It's not like the technology for helping you position yourself on camera doesn't exist. So, how is the edict for age verification conflicting with accessibility concerns? From a legal point of view, I mean.

In the UK there is the Disability Discrimination Act. So if we are being barred from using services then I would say this would fall into that.

at any rate, a discussion is needed first and these companies need to be aware of the issues so that they can be resolved. I don't really see why sight should make much difference here?

I believe the equality Act actually repealed the Disability Discrimination Act. It was what we lawyers call a consolidating piece of legislation - grouping together all sorts of equality-oriented statutes passed between the 1970s and 2010 - but it also did a bit more than that e.g. the public sector equality duty. I am not saying the accessible technological solution is not out there. I'm simply drawing on my several years' experience with remote identification/verification services to suggest that if it is out there, I ain't seen it. If I am right, then I am afraid that any indirect discrimination is most probably objectively justifiable and therefore not unlawful. Discrimination is lawful if it is objectively justifiable. In any event this is all nothing to the point, I'm afraid. Whom would you want to sue? In what tort? For what remedy?

Well, first things first we need the discussion and to raise awareness before we think of that.

But at the end of the day it is illegal to discriminate based on disability. So if Spotify force this on me then delete my account, as a customer of Spotify I could potentially sue them for discriminating against me. I'm not personally a customer of the app they use - they chose this one and that's nothing to do with me. They could counter-sue those devs if they wanted to.

I don't know exactly what the legislation says but I would be surprised if it mandated doing things in an inaccessible way.

Again, not saying I have any intention to sue. I am currently in the belief that the problem is ignorance more than anyone deliberately choosing to discriminate against us, and the counter to that is education in the first instance.

Has anyone on here actually tried to talk to anyone about this? Either the devs behind the app from the OP or the RNIB?