HN Explorer

Ask HN: Subtle web accessibility shakedown or cunning SEO?

5 points by philiphodgen ↗ HN
I received a friendly email from an "Accessibility Intern" at http://www.accessibleunited.org, complaining that one of my blog posts linked to Wikipedia, which (the intern claimed) is not accessible to disabled people.

The email suggested that I instead link to a different website that has a page on the same topic.

The site -- accessibilityunited.org -- was registered on GoDaddy in mid-June, 2017. It's new. As you might guess, WHOIS information is opaque.

My paranoid mind :-) sees two possible reasons for the email I received:

* A subtle way to generate backlinks for the site that the Accessibility Intern recommended. Maybe an SEO firm is hiding behind the facade of a do-good organization that they created for this purpose. (This happens in politics all the time).

* A subtle way to set me up for an ADA lawsuit, claiming my website is not accessible to the disabled. Unfortunately I have seen bottom-feeding law firms (I do not judge, and I am not bitter that they are besmirching the reputation of a profession of which I am a member) make a killing this way.

Web searches revealed nothing about accessibilityunited.org except that it appears to live on shared hosting at Hurricane Electric.

So. Has anyone else seen these emails? Does anyone else have insight into what might be happening here?

10 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 29.6 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
brudgers
Maybe someone is just pointing out that your website is inaccessible.

For what it is worth, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not attract "bottom feeding law firms." It provides no monetary damages. It provides no attorney's fees. It only provides injunctive relief (and mediation). In other words all of the costs under ADA are borne by the plaintiff except for what the defendant chooses to spend on their defense. Thus lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act are rare.

The lawsuits about which one reads outrageous reports are inevitably filed under state law and typically California's statute which does provide for attorney fees and damages. A few other states have similar laws, but in most of the country ADA compliance is spotty...and on the web it is pretty much the exception.

If it really matters, hire an attorney familiar with the case. If it sorta' matters read the law yourself. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

philiphodgen
Thanks for the reply. I am California-based so the outrageous reports I hear are caused by California law. Hence, I am at risk from Lawyers of Ill Repute.

Actions Will Be Taken.

While it would be nice to assume this is a Good Samaritan pointing out a problem with a page I link to, my suspicion is otherwise. A Good Samaritan would not hide behind a cloak of invisibility.

Anyway. This post is now accessible to search engines and hopefully will help the next person who gets a cryptic email from a bland facade.

Mz
While it would be nice to assume this is a Good Samaritan pointing out a problem with a page I link to, my suspicion is otherwise. A Good Samaritan would not hide behind a cloak of invisibility.

Former naïve Good Samaritan here who has learned to be a lot more circumspect. I have Baggage on this topic. I have deleted a multiple paragraph rant about all my Baggage. (You are welcome.)

Good Samaritans who have been burned enough learn to pack a cloak of invisibility for survival purposes.

That doesn't prove they aren't nefarious actors, but their cloak of invisibility is also not evidence of nefariousness. It might just be evidence that they have been around the block a time or two and have gotten a clue about a few things.

brudgers
Is complying with civil rights law a viable alternative?
philiphodgen
The charitable interpretation might be that I intend to do something about the issue. I'm sorry that I was a bit cryptic when I responded "Actions Will Be Taken." Perhaps that led you to an inference that I am a crusty dinosaur who could care less about those around me. It's not the case.

The problem I face is that I have a fairly vanilla WordPress site and I run a small business. I need to be careful, even if I am with good intentions doing the best I can.

Long ago there was a law firm here in the Los Angeles area (across the street from my old offices, in fact) that made a small fortune pursuing small businesses for ADA infractions (real or otherwise). It was cheaper for these small businesses to pay the Danegeld than fight. Later these lawyers were disbarred.

I have seen similar patterns with other predatory groups of lawyers. The foreclosure crisis of 2009-2010 had them. This is one of the advantages of having existed on the planet for a few decades -- seeing patterns.

People who behave like copyright trolls exist in other areas of life. Our job as humans, here for a transitory moment of the universe, appears to be simple -- be kind and helpful to each other, and stay alive. I am trying to do both.

brudgers
My initial remark was premised on charitable interpretation and encouragement toward making the site accessible. That seems a dead end.
LarryMade2
Sounds suspect to me, very vague, looks like it's looking for referrals to sign people up for some service.

official stuff would be from ada.gov, or some more popular, well documented site, not some one-off.

The wording could be some propaganda site, heh, with phrases like:

- We identify highly accessible websites with vital information. - We reach out to webmasters to notify them of an opportunity. - We offer free resources to webmasters who want to go accessible. - Most importantly, we do all our work with love. We Care.

ADA and accessibility sites actually provide much of the free info without having to contact anyone...

ohashi
I had someone get a very similar email trying to get someone to change a link from me to a competitor. It sounds almost identical with a different domain. They linked to some accessibility checker. The problem, the site they tried to convince didn't pass this checker either. But the person who emailed wasn't concerned about that, they just wanted a link to me changed to my competitor (who was obviously their client).

If it's the same pattern, it's just a malicious negative SEO campaign. I'm planning on writing about it soon.