[jtsuken]

> you're all drawing a distinction that I don't see?

The distinction you are not seeing is between actual harm and a pretext for lawyers to sue.

Actual harm to the environment and real business profits result from manufacturers producing and selling proprietary charing devices (I bought at least 3 and disposed of at least 2 Apple magsafe2 chargers, while having perfectly working generic chargers around my home).

An indie developer hosting a free website is neither causing permanent and irreversible damage to the environment nor is he making any money as a result of his websites not being accessibility compliant.

[dereg]

> An indie developer hosting a free website is neither causing permanent and irreversible damage to the environment nor is he making any money as a result of his websites not being accessibility compliant.

Odd complaint seeing as how Apple no longer includes chargers with iPhones, on environmental grounds. There are many people who complained about that, as well.

[themitigating]

The developer is causing harm to those who want to access it but can't and he's making money by not making it accessible.

As for harming the environment, that's unrelated

[ok_dad]

And now no one can use it. Perhaps there’s a way to provide access to those who need it but not sue a person for making a hobby site?