4 ms·

Can you formulate an argument for why course material collected, published, and shared for free--with no tie to actual courses that provide graduating credit--b

Can you formulate an argument for why course material collected, published, and shared for free--with no tie to actual courses that provide graduating credit--by large institutions should be subjected to accessibility requirements which does not extend to an attack on freely sharing information everywhere? EDIT: For online course material that is offered to enrolled students and required for the completion of a degree, I do not believe anyone is arguing in opposition.

ahelwer 10y ago
Excellent question! I like playing the role of gadfly, but will now try to construct my own argument for demolition to the enjoyment of others. First, let's examine the virtue of accessibility. We start with the observation that nearly 1 in 5 Americans are disabled[0]. The source provides a breakdown by disability type. 1 in 5 is a high enough ratio to appeal to purely selfish reasons for the virtue of accessibility: there is quite a good chance you yourself will become disabled and require accommodation, so you should advocate for accessibility while you are still fortunate enough to be healthy. Other reasons to support accessibility include improved economic output by including the disabled in the workforce, ensuring a path to success for exceptional disabled people, increased quality of life among the disabled populace (about which you may or may not care), and an appeal to the abstract ideal of equality. Now that we have established the virtue of accessibility, let's consider the virtue of enshrining accessibility requirements in law with penalty for non-compliance. Clearly, not all services desired by the disabled will implement accessibility (an example is the topic of this thread). Of those services which do not voluntarily implement accessibility, does the government have any interest in compelling implementation? Your answer to this question will depend on your own beliefs about the role of government; to head off an enormous digression, we'll just assume that yes, the government does have such an interest. If the government has an interest in compelling implementation of accessibility, to what services does this interest extend? Certainly not all; it would be absurd to require every favor or interaction between individuals maintain full access compliance. For our purposes here let's use a classification function unlikely to be controversial (and more restrictive than is practiced): services provided by the government, and services provided by institutions receiving money from the government. Both MIT ($460m in 2015[1]) and Harvard ($656m in 2012[2]) receive funding from the federal government. Thus they satisfy our restrictive classification, and so services offered should implement accessibility measures subject to penalty. These free online courses are services offered by MIT and Harvard. Thus they should implement accessibility measures. They certainly have the means. [0] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellane... [1] http://web.mit.edu/ir/financial/re.html http://web.mit.edu/ir/financial/re.html [2] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/12/30/sequestration-research-budget-cuts/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/12/30/sequestration-r...
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  In an effort to both help and ensure I am responding to the strongest form of an argument, and not just picking apart easy weaknesses, would you care to bolster your claims that: - freely publishing course materials to the internet-at-large is the same thing as providing educational services for which the universities receive federal funding - services provided by institutions receiving money from the government includes all services provided--pending your clarification on how releasing information equates to a service provided--entirely, without exemption, and not just those services to which federal funds are directly allocated - applying federal compulsion to meet desired accessibility goals should apply to individuals who are not the official recipients of the benefits of the programs funded by the federal government (in this instance, meaning the general public of internet users who are non-students desiring to consume freely available information) I find this automatic set of claims/assumptions to be highly dubious, as it equates releasing information--even if organized by originating course, thus giving the appearance of being an "online course", but actually lacking any involvement or service from the university beyond releasing the material, and thus not really an "online course"--to providing education to enrolled students (for which the university receives funding and is inarguably subject to accessibility restrictions with associated penalties). I think these are, if one does not ignore the nuances of the circumstances, quite different things that weaken the argument for considering them to be services provided by the university. How do you enshrine this in a principle that applies to all actors? Does everything a university sponsors or engages in fall under these principles? Meaning, because they received federal funding for programs A, B, and C, do programs X, Y, and Z fall under federal purview and penalty, as well? Should the internet public really be granted the latitude to expect they can have their cake and eat it, too, where consuming course material for personal edification as a non-student is concerned? You can check my much lengthier thoughts elsewhere in the thread on this, if you'd like. Also, let's exclude your "They certainly have the means" comment. That, to me, diminishes the force of your argument for principles by concluding it as an argument that the alleged principles only matter because the affected party has the perceived means. I think that severely weakens the case for why this isn't just a grab to hold an entity to a higher standard because they have the money to pay for the burden.
  - 10y ago

ahelwer 10y ago

Excellent question! I like playing the role of gadfly, but will now try to construct my own argument for demolition to the enjoyment of others. First, let's examine the virtue of accessibility. We start with the observation that nearly 1 in 5 Americans are disabled[0]. The source provides a breakdown by disability type. 1 in 5 is a high enough ratio to appeal to purely selfish reasons for the virtue of accessibility: there is quite a good chance you yourself will become disabled and require accommodation, so you should advocate for accessibility while you are still fortunate enough to be healthy. Other reasons to support accessibility include improved economic output by including the disabled in the workforce, ensuring a path to success for exceptional disabled people, increased quality of life among the disabled populace (about which you may or may not care), and an appeal to the abstract ideal of equality. Now that we have established the virtue of accessibility, let's consider the virtue of enshrining accessibility requirements in law with penalty for non-compliance. Clearly, not all services desired by the disabled will implement accessibility (an example is the topic of this thread). Of those services which do not voluntarily implement accessibility, does the government have any interest in compelling implementation? Your answer to this question will depend on your own beliefs about the role of government; to head off an enormous digression, we'll just assume that yes, the government does have such an interest. If the government has an interest in compelling implementation of accessibility, to what services does this interest extend? Certainly not all; it would be absurd to require every favor or interaction between individuals maintain full access compliance. For our purposes here let's use a classification function unlikely to be controversial (and more restrictive than is practiced): services provided by the government, and services provided by institutions receiving money from the government. Both MIT ($460m in 2015[1]) and Harvard ($656m in 2012[2]) receive funding from the federal government. Thus they satisfy our restrictive classification, and so services offered should implement accessibility measures subject to penalty. These free online courses are services offered by MIT and Harvard. Thus they should implement accessibility measures. They certainly have the means. [0] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellane... [1] http://web.mit.edu/ir/financial/re.html http://web.mit.edu/ir/financial/re.html [2] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/12/30/sequestration-research-budget-cuts/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/12/30/sequestration-r...

bobwaycott 10y ago
In an effort to both help and ensure I am responding to the strongest form of an argument, and not just picking apart easy weaknesses, would you care to bolster your claims that: - freely publishing course materials to the internet-at-large is the same thing as providing educational services for which the universities receive federal funding - services provided by institutions receiving money from the government includes all services provided--pending your clarification on how releasing information equates to a service provided--entirely, without exemption, and not just those services to which federal funds are directly allocated - applying federal compulsion to meet desired accessibility goals should apply to individuals who are not the official recipients of the benefits of the programs funded by the federal government (in this instance, meaning the general public of internet users who are non-students desiring to consume freely available information) I find this automatic set of claims/assumptions to be highly dubious, as it equates releasing information--even if organized by originating course, thus giving the appearance of being an "online course", but actually lacking any involvement or service from the university beyond releasing the material, and thus not really an "online course"--to providing education to enrolled students (for which the university receives funding and is inarguably subject to accessibility restrictions with associated penalties). I think these are, if one does not ignore the nuances of the circumstances, quite different things that weaken the argument for considering them to be services provided by the university. How do you enshrine this in a principle that applies to all actors? Does everything a university sponsors or engages in fall under these principles? Meaning, because they received federal funding for programs A, B, and C, do programs X, Y, and Z fall under federal purview and penalty, as well? Should the internet public really be granted the latitude to expect they can have their cake and eat it, too, where consuming course material for personal edification as a non-student is concerned? You can check my much lengthier thoughts elsewhere in the thread on this, if you'd like. Also, let's exclude your "They certainly have the means" comment. That, to me, diminishes the force of your argument for principles by concluding it as an argument that the alleged principles only matter because the affected party has the perceived means. I think that severely weakens the case for why this isn't just a grab to hold an entity to a higher standard because they have the money to pay for the burden.
- 10y ago