8 ms·

I agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

by erok 12y ago

fps 12y ago
On EdX.org, where Harvard and MIT put many online courses for free, all course videos already are professionally captioned and accessible. The cited videos in the lawsuit aren't even course videos, they're promotional videos or streaming versions of conferences. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President Obama and Lady Gaga visiting campus for an event. - see http://creeclaw.org/online-content-lawsuit-harvard-mit/ http://creeclaw.org/online-content-lawsuit-harvard-mit/
- erok 12y ago
  This will just change all of it though.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    Most of these videos are already being captioned. What's needed in large part is just higher quality captions. Nobody is shutting anything down for the mere lack of a better captioning system.
Sanddancer 12y ago
Which means you'll have just as much access to the knowledge as deaf people. Accessibility should never be an add-on.
- Retra 12y ago
  You have a good point, but I would point out that deaf people watching a silent un-captioned video is more access to knowledge than watching no video at all.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei8fyGwsy1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei8fyGwsy1o without looking at the captions and see how much you get from it. You're not going to get much if anything from the video. Now, add a professor who will be turning to write on a blackboard, doesn't move their lips enough for you to read them, etc, and you can start to see how this is a real problem.
- aneeshm 12y ago
  Deaf people's problems are not my problems (except insofar as I choose to act on empathy I may feel), and making something accessible is a choice, and not something deaf people have any right to, nor I any obligation to provide. They are entitled to nothing (from me) I do not freely choose to give. They may have achieved sufficient political power to force others to do what they want, whether or not the other person wants to - but that is just coercion and nothing more than thuggery, and should be treated as such. To destroy other people's access to a good because you have the power to, in order to coerce them into acting so that you receive such a good yourself, is wrong. (If I have the resources to make something accessible, and if I value making something accessible to deaf people over other uses of those resources, then of course it's a good thing to make it accessible. Personally, I think making these videos accessible would be a very good thing; I also think that, as long as it's reasonably feasible, the universities should . But the existence of deaf people does not represent any kind of a claim on my (or anyone else's) resources, nor a shackle on my behaviour; and if it does under current, it damn well shouldn't, and that law is unjust and oppressive.)
  - eseehausen 12y ago
    How does that even square? According to your initial premise, your problems are not deaf people's problems (except insofar as they choose to act on empathy they may feel), and they should do everything in their power to maximize their access, even if it costs you. If you want to live in the state of nature, everyone has the right to trample on everyone else. Mercifully, our social structure still is more in line with Rawls than Rand.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I consider Rand's political theories misguided, but it's certainly not "the state of nature", nor is that aneeshm's position. Claiming so is just flamebait, not having an honest discussion.
      - eseehausen 12y ago
        "Flamebait" was certainly not my intention. I may be naive, but what is the difference between a society comprised of people with no obligations toward each other and the state of nature? Edit: For instance, for Hobbes, that pretty much is the definition of the state of nature, in which everyone has the natural right to their own self-preservation and goals. The rise of sovereign power is often conceived of as the enforcement of obligations that override natural rights to complete liberty (through something that is probably even more properly called "thuggery" than deaf advocacy groups' political actions).
- icebraining 12y ago
  That's not actually true, since a deaf person (or community) could pay to get them captioned. That doesn't mean they should have to, but it's not the same as not having the video in the first place.
- loco5niner 12y ago
  I believe the point is that if a barrier to produce 'a thing' is raised, people will be less likely to produce more of 'a thing'.

I agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

by erok 12y ago

I agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

fps 12y ago

On EdX.org, where Harvard and MIT put many online courses for free, all course videos already are professionally captioned and accessible. The cited videos in the lawsuit aren't even course videos, they're promotional videos or streaming versions of conferences. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President Obama and Lady Gaga visiting campus for an event. - see http://creeclaw.org/online-content-lawsuit-harvard-mit/ http://creeclaw.org/online-content-lawsuit-harvard-mit/

erok 12y ago
This will just change all of it though.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Most of these videos are already being captioned. What's needed in large part is just higher quality captions. Nobody is shutting anything down for the mere lack of a better captioning system.

Sanddancer 12y ago

Which means you'll have just as much access to the knowledge as deaf people. Accessibility should never be an add-on.

Retra 12y ago
You have a good point, but I would point out that deaf people watching a silent un-captioned video is more access to knowledge than watching no video at all.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei8fyGwsy1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei8fyGwsy1o without looking at the captions and see how much you get from it. You're not going to get much if anything from the video. Now, add a professor who will be turning to write on a blackboard, doesn't move their lips enough for you to read them, etc, and you can start to see how this is a real problem.
aneeshm 12y ago
Deaf people's problems are not my problems (except insofar as I choose to act on empathy I may feel), and making something accessible is a choice, and not something deaf people have any right to, nor I any obligation to provide. They are entitled to nothing (from me) I do not freely choose to give. They may have achieved sufficient political power to force others to do what they want, whether or not the other person wants to - but that is just coercion and nothing more than thuggery, and should be treated as such. To destroy other people's access to a good because you have the power to, in order to coerce them into acting so that you receive such a good yourself, is wrong. (If I have the resources to make something accessible, and if I value making something accessible to deaf people over other uses of those resources, then of course it's a good thing to make it accessible. Personally, I think making these videos accessible would be a very good thing; I also think that, as long as it's reasonably feasible, the universities should . But the existence of deaf people does not represent any kind of a claim on my (or anyone else's) resources, nor a shackle on my behaviour; and if it does under current, it damn well shouldn't, and that law is unjust and oppressive.)
- eseehausen 12y ago
  How does that even square? According to your initial premise, your problems are not deaf people's problems (except insofar as they choose to act on empathy they may feel), and they should do everything in their power to maximize their access, even if it costs you. If you want to live in the state of nature, everyone has the right to trample on everyone else. Mercifully, our social structure still is more in line with Rawls than Rand.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I consider Rand's political theories misguided, but it's certainly not "the state of nature", nor is that aneeshm's position. Claiming so is just flamebait, not having an honest discussion.
    - eseehausen 12y ago
      "Flamebait" was certainly not my intention. I may be naive, but what is the difference between a society comprised of people with no obligations toward each other and the state of nature? Edit: For instance, for Hobbes, that pretty much is the definition of the state of nature, in which everyone has the natural right to their own self-preservation and goals. The rise of sovereign power is often conceived of as the enforcement of obligations that override natural rights to complete liberty (through something that is probably even more properly called "thuggery" than deaf advocacy groups' political actions).
icebraining 12y ago
That's not actually true, since a deaf person (or community) could pay to get them captioned. That doesn't mean they should have to, but it's not the same as not having the video in the first place.
loco5niner 12y ago
I believe the point is that if a barrier to produce 'a thing' is raised, people will be less likely to produce more of 'a thing'.