6 ms·

It's not about money it's about making sure things are accessible. The ADA is one of the reasons America is more accessible then Europe. Lawsuits are the enforc

by rat87 9mo ago

It's not about money it's about making sure things are accessible. The ADA is one of the reasons America is more accessible then Europe. Lawsuits are the enforcement mechanism

blitz_skull 9mo ago
Your argument is that someone sued Berkeley for posting free education materials online purely in the name of accessibility and not to make a quick buck? Free education provided at zero profit to Berkeley, to great benefit to the public, and it was just the wholesome desire for subtitles that made the case? Bullshit.
- BeetleB 9mo ago
  > and not to make a quick buck? Tell us - how much money did they make?
raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
How accessible is the course now?
- pxc 9mo ago
  How is malicious compliance the fault of someone who asks for disability accomodations? It is unfortunate that the ADA is designed so that the only mechanism of enforcement of disability rights is lawsuits. :-\ Maybe there should be some exceptions around things provided on a "best-effort" basis, if they can be very carefully crafted.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    For context: I have cerebral palsy. Play the smallest fiddle for me, it only affects my left hand and slightly my left foot. But I’ve been a part time fitness instructor, properly conditioned I have run decently (10 minute mile) up to a 15K before my slight favoring of my right leg takes it’s toll and I’ve been a gym rat since 1990 and I just left the gym. But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me.
    - BeetleB 9mo ago
      > But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me. And you should not expect all disabled people in the country to waive their rights just because you do.
      - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content.
        BeetleB 9mo ago
        Edit: Just realized the library discussion was in another thread - but the discussion was still with you so I'm keeping it in this comment. > So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? He didn't have access before, and he doesn't have access now. Nothing is worse for him. It's not his responsibility to provide the service to others. It is the library's, and they clearly failed and are rightfully blamed for no one having access. If I were a normal person in the town, I would blame them, not the person filing the lawsuit. If the library shut down because they had clear mold issues they refused to pay to fix, would you blame the immunocompromised, at risk person who filed the lawsuit? Or would you say the library should get its act together and provide a safe/healthy environment? Imagine a school shutting down because they cannot afford all these new colored students that they could exclude before. Are you going to blame the colored students for insisting on their rights? This is basic Civil Rights 101. You can't use the excuse of "we don't have money" to discriminate, which UCBerkeley was clearly doing. > Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content. Nothing is free. The library patron paid for it via taxes, as did everyone else. Just as everyone pays federal taxes, as did the person in another state who sued UC Berkeley. He's paying, and not getting what he is owed. If you don't like it, just don't take federal funds. Many organizations' web sites are inaccessible, and that's totally OK and legal.
        raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  - vintermann 9mo ago
    Many interest groups in the US are for hire. Meaning, if you don't like a piece of upcoming legislation, you can give them a donation and they'll find out a way the upcoming legislation hurts their demographic. These groups have overwhelmingly passive members, who don't run the organization in any meaningful way. There are even more mercenary groups, whose business model is basically extorting organizations for donations, threatening with expensive lawsuits and bad publicity. It seems pretty likely to me that NAD's lawsuits are more about this, and less about actually caring about deaf access. There are a lot of them, and they seem to go for big pockets. Probably the efforts Berkeley went to to offer accessibility would have been deemed good enough to not sue over (for now) if they had donated. It doesn't mean the causes such orgs ostensibly fight for aren't good. It's just that when enforcement is by lawsuit, it's inevitably selective enforcement, and that just creates a huge business opportunity for unscrupulous lawyers (which there is no shortage of).
    - BeetleB 9mo ago
      > It seems pretty likely to me that NAD's lawsuits are more about this, and less about actually caring about deaf access. There are a lot of them, and they seem to go for big pockets. Probably the efforts Berkeley went to to offer accessibility would have been deemed good enough to not sue over (for now) if they had donated. It's a convenient narrative. Here's another one: Senior administrator at the university doesn't like the project. It costs money to provide as it is, and money is always tight at a public university. They should be more focused on income generating patents (which, BTW, UC Berkeley is/was good at). And now they want us to spend even more money? Let's kill the project. I spent a long time at universities, and I also worked for 1.5 years in the university's disability division, so I somewhat know the needs of the disabled. Part of that division's role was "policing" professors' course pages (albeit only when a student complained), so I'm familiar with the territory. Our position was clear: It's the law. I also know how university administrator's think - they rarely like initiatives meant for the public good for free. Finally: How much money did they make suing UC Berkeley? Did anyone (other than the lawyers) make money out of it? Why are people so certain this was a money grabbing lawsuit?
      - 9mo ago
- BeetleB 9mo ago
  > How accessible is the course now? Entirely irrelevant. If a city has a public library, but refuses to build a wheelchair ramp, and an elevator to upper floors, and doesn't provide reasonable alternatives to these deficiencies, they can (and should) get sued. If the city then throws up their hand and says "Too expensive" and shuts down the library (everyone suffers), I will not be siding with the library.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    Well, how much good does that do anyone? But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. Should they also be forced to take down the website if the speaker didn’t speak perfect English?
    - BeetleB 9mo ago
      > But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. This is a falsehood. The complaint was that some videos had no transcription at all. There were other complaints, BTW - it wasn't just subtitles. There were complaints about blind people not being able to read the docs. Edit: I think one of the (multiple) complaints was poor transcription. What I meant by "falsehood" was actually referring to an earlier comment that said something to the effect of "they provided subtitles". In some cases they did not provide subtitles.
      - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        Just doing a little research - I haven’t looked too deeply into- Google live caption has been built into Chrome since 2021 and there have been third party tools for accessibility since 2016. But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?
        BeetleB 9mo ago
        > But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone? Sorry, but the question is: Is the world a better place if organizations feel they need not comply with this law? If the answer is yes, then go fix the law. Stop picking on the little guys.

by rat87 9mo ago

It's not about money it's about making sure things are accessible. The ADA is one of the reasons America is more accessible then Europe. Lawsuits are the enforcement mechanism

blitz_skull 9mo ago

Your argument is that someone sued Berkeley for posting free education materials online purely in the name of accessibility and not to make a quick buck? Free education provided at zero profit to Berkeley, to great benefit to the public, and it was just the wholesome desire for subtitles that made the case? Bullshit.

BeetleB 9mo ago
> and not to make a quick buck? Tell us - how much money did they make?

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago

How accessible is the course now?

pxc 9mo ago
How is malicious compliance the fault of someone who asks for disability accomodations? It is unfortunate that the ADA is designed so that the only mechanism of enforcement of disability rights is lawsuits. :-\ Maybe there should be some exceptions around things provided on a "best-effort" basis, if they can be very carefully crafted.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  For context: I have cerebral palsy. Play the smallest fiddle for me, it only affects my left hand and slightly my left foot. But I’ve been a part time fitness instructor, properly conditioned I have run decently (10 minute mile) up to a 15K before my slight favoring of my right leg takes it’s toll and I’ve been a gym rat since 1990 and I just left the gym. But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me.
  - BeetleB 9mo ago
    > But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me. And you should not expect all disabled people in the country to waive their rights just because you do.
    - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
      So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content.
      - BeetleB 9mo ago
        Edit: Just realized the library discussion was in another thread - but the discussion was still with you so I'm keeping it in this comment. > So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? He didn't have access before, and he doesn't have access now. Nothing is worse for him. It's not his responsibility to provide the service to others. It is the library's, and they clearly failed and are rightfully blamed for no one having access. If I were a normal person in the town, I would blame them, not the person filing the lawsuit. If the library shut down because they had clear mold issues they refused to pay to fix, would you blame the immunocompromised, at risk person who filed the lawsuit? Or would you say the library should get its act together and provide a safe/healthy environment? Imagine a school shutting down because they cannot afford all these new colored students that they could exclude before. Are you going to blame the colored students for insisting on their rights? This is basic Civil Rights 101. You can't use the excuse of "we don't have money" to discriminate, which UCBerkeley was clearly doing. > Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content. Nothing is free. The library patron paid for it via taxes, as did everyone else. Just as everyone pays federal taxes, as did the person in another state who sued UC Berkeley. He's paying, and not getting what he is owed. If you don't like it, just don't take federal funds. Many organizations' web sites are inaccessible, and that's totally OK and legal.
        raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
- vintermann 9mo ago
  Many interest groups in the US are for hire. Meaning, if you don't like a piece of upcoming legislation, you can give them a donation and they'll find out a way the upcoming legislation hurts their demographic. These groups have overwhelmingly passive members, who don't run the organization in any meaningful way. There are even more mercenary groups, whose business model is basically extorting organizations for donations, threatening with expensive lawsuits and bad publicity. It seems pretty likely to me that NAD's lawsuits are more about this, and less about actually caring about deaf access. There are a lot of them, and they seem to go for big pockets. Probably the efforts Berkeley went to to offer accessibility would have been deemed good enough to not sue over (for now) if they had donated. It doesn't mean the causes such orgs ostensibly fight for aren't good. It's just that when enforcement is by lawsuit, it's inevitably selective enforcement, and that just creates a huge business opportunity for unscrupulous lawyers (which there is no shortage of).
  - BeetleB 9mo ago
    > It seems pretty likely to me that NAD's lawsuits are more about this, and less about actually caring about deaf access. There are a lot of them, and they seem to go for big pockets. Probably the efforts Berkeley went to to offer accessibility would have been deemed good enough to not sue over (for now) if they had donated. It's a convenient narrative. Here's another one: Senior administrator at the university doesn't like the project. It costs money to provide as it is, and money is always tight at a public university. They should be more focused on income generating patents (which, BTW, UC Berkeley is/was good at). And now they want us to spend even more money? Let's kill the project. I spent a long time at universities, and I also worked for 1.5 years in the university's disability division, so I somewhat know the needs of the disabled. Part of that division's role was "policing" professors' course pages (albeit only when a student complained), so I'm familiar with the territory. Our position was clear: It's the law. I also know how university administrator's think - they rarely like initiatives meant for the public good for free. Finally: How much money did they make suing UC Berkeley? Did anyone (other than the lawyers) make money out of it? Why are people so certain this was a money grabbing lawsuit?
    - 9mo ago
BeetleB 9mo ago
> How accessible is the course now? Entirely irrelevant. If a city has a public library, but refuses to build a wheelchair ramp, and an elevator to upper floors, and doesn't provide reasonable alternatives to these deficiencies, they can (and should) get sued. If the city then throws up their hand and says "Too expensive" and shuts down the library (everyone suffers), I will not be siding with the library.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  Well, how much good does that do anyone? But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. Should they also be forced to take down the website if the speaker didn’t speak perfect English?
  - BeetleB 9mo ago
    > But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. This is a falsehood. The complaint was that some videos had no transcription at all. There were other complaints, BTW - it wasn't just subtitles. There were complaints about blind people not being able to read the docs. Edit: I think one of the (multiple) complaints was poor transcription. What I meant by "falsehood" was actually referring to an earlier comment that said something to the effect of "they provided subtitles". In some cases they did not provide subtitles.
    - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
      Just doing a little research - I haven’t looked too deeply into- Google live caption has been built into Chrome since 2021 and there have been third party tools for accessibility since 2016. But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?
      - BeetleB 9mo ago
        > But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone? Sorry, but the question is: Is the world a better place if organizations feel they need not comply with this law? If the answer is yes, then go fix the law. Stop picking on the little guys.