6 ms·

I appreciate this discussion because we need to realize the trade offs of strict fairness. In order to be fair, we have provided less good/utility for those tha

by fiter 10y ago

I appreciate this discussion because we need to realize the trade offs of strict fairness. In order to be fair, we have provided less good/utility for those that were benefiting unfairly from the service. We have not provided any additional good/utility for those that were not able to benefit from the service.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Yeah, it is a trade off. We're basically forcing content producers to subsidize access for the hearing impaired. This will make some content not worth publishing at the margin, while also forcing the clearly-worth-publishing things to provide access at their expense. The non-obvious thing is that this compliance-by-force is non-local. If you only look at Berkeley's videos, you're giving up these videos pointlessly. You have to also look at the videos that are going to be published anyways, and whether they'd include access for the deaf if people weren't dicks about enforcement.
- fiter 10y ago
  I like the way you put it: the creators are required to subsidize the disabled. Would it be better if this was approached from the other side? Creators could create without this concern. Disabled consumers would then pay for services that make specific creations accessible to them. The US government could then explicitly subsidize the disabled people.
pessimizer 10y ago
> We have not provided any additional good/utility for those that were not able to benefit from the service. If you insist on looking at this incident in isolation, yes. But if you look at it like that, there's no reason to imprison murderers, because it won't bring the victim back to life. If there were no requirement, very few things would be accessible. As a minority, the deaf will always be irrelevant to the majorities' utility calculus.
- fiter 10y ago
  There's definitely reasons to imprison murderers: (1) to prevent them from murdering again, (2) to rehabilitate them so they do not murder again, (3) to give feelings of closure/justice to those that cared for the victim. I think ThrustVectoring said it best in a post above yours: we're requiring creators to subsidize the disabled. An alternative way to subsidize the disabled might be to give them some amount of money every year which they can use to buy transcription, parking, etc. services. This might result in only certain content being transcribed. This might result in less parking spaces that are continuously empty. Maybe that would be a better use of everyone's time. Maybe it would create unnecessary decision burden on disabled people.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    The notion that prison rehabilitates has been widely discredited. Most of the time prison hardens criminals and makes them worse, with high recidivism rates being the rule rather than the exception. Also, if your goal was to prevent murderers from murdering again, why would you ever let them out? To generalize this to other crimes: why would you let any criminal out if your goal was to prevent them from committing more crimes?
    - fiter 10y ago
      Keep in mind I said prison, not "US prison system in 2017". http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-... You would let murderers out because you think there is some compromise between their freedom and the crime they committed. What is your suggestion?

by fiter 10y ago

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Yeah, it is a trade off. We're basically forcing content producers to subsidize access for the hearing impaired. This will make some content not worth publishing at the margin, while also forcing the clearly-worth-publishing things to provide access at their expense. The non-obvious thing is that this compliance-by-force is non-local. If you only look at Berkeley's videos, you're giving up these videos pointlessly. You have to also look at the videos that are going to be published anyways, and whether they'd include access for the deaf if people weren't dicks about enforcement.

fiter 10y ago
I like the way you put it: the creators are required to subsidize the disabled. Would it be better if this was approached from the other side? Creators could create without this concern. Disabled consumers would then pay for services that make specific creations accessible to them. The US government could then explicitly subsidize the disabled people.

pessimizer 10y ago

> We have not provided any additional good/utility for those that were not able to benefit from the service. If you insist on looking at this incident in isolation, yes. But if you look at it like that, there's no reason to imprison murderers, because it won't bring the victim back to life. If there were no requirement, very few things would be accessible. As a minority, the deaf will always be irrelevant to the majorities' utility calculus.

fiter 10y ago
There's definitely reasons to imprison murderers: (1) to prevent them from murdering again, (2) to rehabilitate them so they do not murder again, (3) to give feelings of closure/justice to those that cared for the victim. I think ThrustVectoring said it best in a post above yours: we're requiring creators to subsidize the disabled. An alternative way to subsidize the disabled might be to give them some amount of money every year which they can use to buy transcription, parking, etc. services. This might result in only certain content being transcribed. This might result in less parking spaces that are continuously empty. Maybe that would be a better use of everyone's time. Maybe it would create unnecessary decision burden on disabled people.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  The notion that prison rehabilitates has been widely discredited. Most of the time prison hardens criminals and makes them worse, with high recidivism rates being the rule rather than the exception. Also, if your goal was to prevent murderers from murdering again, why would you ever let them out? To generalize this to other crimes: why would you let any criminal out if your goal was to prevent them from committing more crimes?
  - fiter 10y ago
    Keep in mind I said prison, not "US prison system in 2017". http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-... You would let murderers out because you think there is some compromise between their freedom and the crime they committed. What is your suggestion?