6 ms·

If this causes a chilling effect such that universities find it easier or less costly to withhold the free lectures, it means the net effect on society from ADA

by jasode 10y ago

If this causes a chilling effect such that universities find it easier or less costly to withhold the free lectures, it means the net effect on society from ADA lawsuits [about the free learning videos] is harmful. Similar discussion as previous thread on UC Berkley: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12519761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12519761 If the universities avoid releasing free videos, that punishes all of us including the majority of people who don't have disabilities. I'd prefer to find another way to caption these videos besides throwing around lawsuits. If a Federal appeals court rules that Netflix doesn't have to caption their commercial videos[1], surely we can cut some slack for free education videos. [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/9th-circuit-rules-netflix-isnt-subject-to-disability-law/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/9th-circuit-rules...

teej 10y ago
Unfortunately I don't think the Netflix ruling is going to apply here because Netflix doesn't take federal money to operate.
ahelwer 10y ago
Your argument here applies against all services which provide access to people with disabilities at increased expense, and is furthermore highly dependent on how you define net effect. Disability advocacy groups have pursued this cause through other channels, to no effect. This lawsuit is a last resort. The institutions have had a long time to get it together; as the article says, a letter was sent by the DOJ way back in 2010.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Your argument here applies against all services [...] No, not all. I was restricting my argument to things given away for free with no commercial gain. As society, we've agreed that making commercial entities like restaurants install wheelchair ramps is good. However, if we see a soup kitchen feeding the hungry poor and notice that the building they use doesn't have a wheelchair ramp, we should threaten them with a lawsuit?!? (Yes, the hungry poor can be wheelchair bound too.) It seems means-spirited and a misguided use of the ADA.
  - ahelwer 10y ago
    Okay. So your argument is if a service is provided for free and there is no commercial gain for the provider, it should be exempt from accessibility requirements. Furthermore, you argue free online courses satisfy these two tests and thus should be exempt from accessibility requirements. There are several lines of attack on this argument. The first is against your contention that these institutions enjoy no commercial gain. There are clear PR gains from offering these courses, both through engendering goodwill and increasing prestige. I am not saying these courses are offered only for PR reasons, but it is difficult to deny their effect. The second line of attack is against your belief that free goods & services should not be subject to accessibility requirements. You use the example of a soup kitchen. Here I will digress for a moment and say I believe analogies are an exceptionally poor form of argument in civil rights contexts, which operate on abstract principles such as the value of equality. Thus an emotional appeal to our intuition about what is mean-spirited is unlikely to be useful. Returning to the argument at hand, we can question what is special about a free good or service which enables its exemption from accessibility requirements while remaining consistent with our principles of equality. So, I pass the ball back to you - what is your answer for this question?
    - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
      How is someone supposed to respond to an abstract question without analogy to similar questions? The ADA only demands "reasonable accommodation," and frankly that's what we are arguing about: what is "reasonable?" Our law provides many special cases when the entity is engaging in non-profit activities: taxes, labor requirements, among others. So you ask why non-commercial should entities be excluded from accessibility requirements: because they already get excluded from other onerous requirements we place on businesses, and it seems like a "reasonable" line to draw. Maybe you don't find it reasonable, but now it's up to a court decide.
falcolas 10y ago
If you believe the ADA is a net negative, it's good thing that you have no opportunity to ever become disabled then. > the majority of people who don't have disabilities Almost 19% of the US' population is disabled in one way or another. That's a lot of folks to discriminate against. But you're right, they're the minority, so what rights should they have to get access to publicly available services? Rip out those ramps, get rid of the parking spaces, close up the isles, and shut down those elevators. > Netflix doesn't have to caption Netflix won that appeal, and lost the next. Rather than take it further, they made a deal and added closed captioning. So, yes, if you offer public content, it should be available for everybody. Cost of doing business. While this content may be nominally free, it's an advertisement for MIT and Harvard classes. As much money as these universities spend on their regular marketing materials, they can afford a few TAs to add captions to their video courses.
- roblabla 10y ago
  Unfortunately, I have to agree with GP here. Even if they're ads for MIT and Harvard, they're "good ads". We absolutely don't want to disincentivize them. Forcing these kind of regulations against them is a disservice to society, as it puts more knowledge away. It'd be great if they were closed captioned, true. But it's already "good enough" that they're public. Giving them even a moment's doubt about the value of putting their knowledge in the public is a bad idea.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > a disservice to society A disservice to society is treating some people who, through no fault of their own, as worth less than everyone else. > Giving them even a moment's doubt about the value of putting their knowledge in the public is a bad idea. So you'll allow them to hold their data hostage to get special favors and exceptions from federal law? Where do you draw the line then? They already provide wheelchair ramps, braille (and low vision) compatible signs, ARIA tags on their websites, door openers, all for free for anybody who comes to their campus; what makes their videos exempt? That they have gotten away this long is them not paying attention to the laws; these lawsuits are simply an attempt to get them to follow the laws in the country they live and work in.

by jasode 10y ago

teej 10y ago

Unfortunately I don't think the Netflix ruling is going to apply here because Netflix doesn't take federal money to operate.

ahelwer 10y ago

Your argument here applies against all services which provide access to people with disabilities at increased expense, and is furthermore highly dependent on how you define net effect. Disability advocacy groups have pursued this cause through other channels, to no effect. This lawsuit is a last resort. The institutions have had a long time to get it together; as the article says, a letter was sent by the DOJ way back in 2010.

jasode 10y ago
>Your argument here applies against all services [...] No, not all. I was restricting my argument to things given away for free with no commercial gain. As society, we've agreed that making commercial entities like restaurants install wheelchair ramps is good. However, if we see a soup kitchen feeding the hungry poor and notice that the building they use doesn't have a wheelchair ramp, we should threaten them with a lawsuit?!? (Yes, the hungry poor can be wheelchair bound too.) It seems means-spirited and a misguided use of the ADA.
- ahelwer 10y ago
  Okay. So your argument is if a service is provided for free and there is no commercial gain for the provider, it should be exempt from accessibility requirements. Furthermore, you argue free online courses satisfy these two tests and thus should be exempt from accessibility requirements. There are several lines of attack on this argument. The first is against your contention that these institutions enjoy no commercial gain. There are clear PR gains from offering these courses, both through engendering goodwill and increasing prestige. I am not saying these courses are offered only for PR reasons, but it is difficult to deny their effect. The second line of attack is against your belief that free goods & services should not be subject to accessibility requirements. You use the example of a soup kitchen. Here I will digress for a moment and say I believe analogies are an exceptionally poor form of argument in civil rights contexts, which operate on abstract principles such as the value of equality. Thus an emotional appeal to our intuition about what is mean-spirited is unlikely to be useful. Returning to the argument at hand, we can question what is special about a free good or service which enables its exemption from accessibility requirements while remaining consistent with our principles of equality. So, I pass the ball back to you - what is your answer for this question?
  - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
    How is someone supposed to respond to an abstract question without analogy to similar questions? The ADA only demands "reasonable accommodation," and frankly that's what we are arguing about: what is "reasonable?" Our law provides many special cases when the entity is engaging in non-profit activities: taxes, labor requirements, among others. So you ask why non-commercial should entities be excluded from accessibility requirements: because they already get excluded from other onerous requirements we place on businesses, and it seems like a "reasonable" line to draw. Maybe you don't find it reasonable, but now it's up to a court decide.

falcolas 10y ago

If you believe the ADA is a net negative, it's good thing that you have no opportunity to ever become disabled then. > the majority of people who don't have disabilities Almost 19% of the US' population is disabled in one way or another. That's a lot of folks to discriminate against. But you're right, they're the minority, so what rights should they have to get access to publicly available services? Rip out those ramps, get rid of the parking spaces, close up the isles, and shut down those elevators. > Netflix doesn't have to caption Netflix won that appeal, and lost the next. Rather than take it further, they made a deal and added closed captioning. So, yes, if you offer public content, it should be available for everybody. Cost of doing business. While this content may be nominally free, it's an advertisement for MIT and Harvard classes. As much money as these universities spend on their regular marketing materials, they can afford a few TAs to add captions to their video courses.

roblabla 10y ago
Unfortunately, I have to agree with GP here. Even if they're ads for MIT and Harvard, they're "good ads". We absolutely don't want to disincentivize them. Forcing these kind of regulations against them is a disservice to society, as it puts more knowledge away. It'd be great if they were closed captioned, true. But it's already "good enough" that they're public. Giving them even a moment's doubt about the value of putting their knowledge in the public is a bad idea.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > a disservice to society A disservice to society is treating some people who, through no fault of their own, as worth less than everyone else. > Giving them even a moment's doubt about the value of putting their knowledge in the public is a bad idea. So you'll allow them to hold their data hostage to get special favors and exceptions from federal law? Where do you draw the line then? They already provide wheelchair ramps, braille (and low vision) compatible signs, ARIA tags on their websites, door openers, all for free for anybody who comes to their campus; what makes their videos exempt? That they have gotten away this long is them not paying attention to the laws; these lawsuits are simply an attempt to get them to follow the laws in the country they live and work in.