4 ms·
It's not an anti-accessibility sentiment, it's anger that the only reasonable thing for these organizations to do is stop giving it away for free. It's like if
by x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
It's not an anti-accessibility sentiment, it's anger that the only reasonable thing for these organizations to do is stop giving it away for free.
It's like if an organization is giving away food and then gets sued for not providing a gluten or nut-free option.
Its the sentiment that if some people can't have it, no one should.
- cooper12 10y agoOr the reasonable thing for them to do is address the issue? No organization in the article said they were going to stop but instead reiterated their commitment to spreading knowledge, as they should. As for your last point, it's very disingenuous to paint the NAD as wanting to deprive others of something rather than wanting to allow disabled people to access something. We're not talking about food which has alternatives, but rather something which isn't accessible at all to deaf people, something which the law mandates with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y agoUC Berkley already pulled their online content for fear of a similar lawsuit.
- microtherion 10y ago> the only reasonable thing for these organizations to do is stop giving it away for free Yeah, it's not like MIT and Harvard have spare money lying around to spend on captioning (apart from the $13.5B and $37.5B, respectively, in their endowments). Let Big Deaf use their deep pockets to pay for captioning, if that's what they want!
- x3n0ph3n3 10y agoThat's such an absurd argument. "They have so much money, so let's MAKE them spend it on ME." MIT and Harvard had nothing to gain from releasing their lectures online for free, and plenty to lose by continuing to do so. When you stare a gift horse in the mouth, expect to be kicked in the face.