4 ms·

So you'd rather have it be that no one has access to these free educational lectures/videos than that a small minority (<20%) can't use them? That's pretty much

So you'd rather have it be that no one has access to these free educational lectures/videos than that a small minority (<20%) can't use them? That's pretty much the perfect example of cutting of your nose to spite your face. If these laws go through, Harvard and MIT should just set up a small subsidiary in another country and upload the videos through those. Problem solved.

falcolas 10y ago
The laws already exist, and Harvard et.al. have been operating under them for years. If they followed those laws and subtitled the videos, the problem would also be solved.
- candiodari 10y ago
  But why should the extra expense be forced upon them ? As has been announced, this will result in the videos being taken offline, not in anything that helps the disabled. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/20/berkeley-may-remove-free-online-content-rather-complying-disability-law https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/20/berkeley-may-... So rather than helping anyone, you're sabotaging many. I would like to point out though that merely uploading a video to YouTube results in it being captioned, for free, by a machine learning algorithm.