5 ms·

For better or worse, large portions of society (especially those found in academia and cities) have decided that a level playing field is more important than ha

by Nadya 10y ago

For better or worse, large portions of society (especially those found in academia and cities) have decided that a level playing field is more important than having any playing field. So to answer your question: it no longer matters whether or not society would be better off. What matters is that everyone is equal and has equal opportunities. If people cannot be given equal opportunity, then the opportunity needs to be taken away from everyone. I think that's the most tame and non-sarcastic way I can respond to your question. This sort of stuff makes me furious and it's only going to keep happening.

camhenlin 10y ago
Totally insane and yet completely true
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
x0x0 10y ago
We decided as a country that handicapped people get access, and we all pay a little more, rolled into the cost of services, to make that so. If Berkeley hadn't skipped providing access, we wouldn't be in this situation.
- baobrain 10y ago
  So even ancient archival things like these are Berkeley's responsibility, even when this was not a concern?
  - x0x0 10y ago
    It certainly was a concern; Berkeley made the decision to ignore it. And yes, access means access for all.
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      It's impossible to have access for all. Reductio ad absurdum: illiterate and mentally handicapped people exist, therefore, we should burn all books. There's likely a fairer way of doing this instead of denying access to all for the sake of a few. For example, a JIT system for accessibility. A disabled person, if interested, could make a request to have material translated to their preferred mode.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Access is not being denied for all, UCB students will still be able to view all videos (it's in the article).
        programmarchy 10y ago
        Thanks, I did read the article. I was responding to GP in a general sense. Still, I think it's a matter of interpretation. Access is being denied for all i.e. the public.
    - Kadin 10y ago
      And when it's prohibitively expensive, you really prefer just not giving anyone access? The amount of video that is being produced and uploaded today makes a requirement to put traditional closed captioning on each one absolutely laughable and ridiculous. It's telling that the requirement was dreamed up in 1990, probably by people without a lot of vision for how cheap bandwidth might become and the amount of content that would be produced and shared within a few decades. The public is the loser, here. Institutions like Berkeley will have to pull down high-quality content, but amateur content isn't affected. So the overall quality of content available to the public just got worse. There is no way in which this is a win for the majority.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Which ancient archival things? The description in the article is "legacy content that is 3-10 years old."
  - DanBC 10y ago
    The law was changed in 1990. 27 years old. These "legacy" things are between 3 and 10 years old. The law had been in effect for 17 years before Berkeley started producing video.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      OK, but what was the video created for? Not to put online, I bet.
- mulmen 10y ago
  But do we actually all pay a little more? Was additional funding added along with the requirement to provide captioning?
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  So Berkley should also restrict access to all the books in its library that don't have braille editions?
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Maybe they could be forced to.
kartan 10y ago
> Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from “pirates” who have reused content for personal profit without consent. Or maybe there are other considerations at stake. > For better or worse, large portions of society (especially those found in academia and cities) have decided that a level playing field is more important than having any playing field. That's completely false. What people has decided is that sometimes is worth having a small cost for the big benefit for everyone that it is to have accessibility. Without a more careful case your arguments falls into the Straw Man fallacy. (This fallacy includes an attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side and attacking that "straw man" argument instead of the original one.) > This sort of stuff makes me furious and it's only going to keep happening. I hope that this video helps you to understand what's suggested for help people with disabilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPymLgfXSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPymLgfXSY It is about helping them, not about making things difficult for the rest. If you have the opportunity to talk with some disabled people that have seen their lives improved thanks to this measures probably you are going to be less furious and more happy about it. :)

by Nadya 10y ago

camhenlin 10y ago

Totally insane and yet completely true

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

x0x0 10y ago

We decided as a country that handicapped people get access, and we all pay a little more, rolled into the cost of services, to make that so. If Berkeley hadn't skipped providing access, we wouldn't be in this situation.

baobrain 10y ago
So even ancient archival things like these are Berkeley's responsibility, even when this was not a concern?
- x0x0 10y ago
  It certainly was a concern; Berkeley made the decision to ignore it. And yes, access means access for all.
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    It's impossible to have access for all. Reductio ad absurdum: illiterate and mentally handicapped people exist, therefore, we should burn all books. There's likely a fairer way of doing this instead of denying access to all for the sake of a few. For example, a JIT system for accessibility. A disabled person, if interested, could make a request to have material translated to their preferred mode.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Access is not being denied for all, UCB students will still be able to view all videos (it's in the article).
      - programmarchy 10y ago
        Thanks, I did read the article. I was responding to GP in a general sense. Still, I think it's a matter of interpretation. Access is being denied for all i.e. the public.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    And when it's prohibitively expensive, you really prefer just not giving anyone access? The amount of video that is being produced and uploaded today makes a requirement to put traditional closed captioning on each one absolutely laughable and ridiculous. It's telling that the requirement was dreamed up in 1990, probably by people without a lot of vision for how cheap bandwidth might become and the amount of content that would be produced and shared within a few decades. The public is the loser, here. Institutions like Berkeley will have to pull down high-quality content, but amateur content isn't affected. So the overall quality of content available to the public just got worse. There is no way in which this is a win for the majority.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Which ancient archival things? The description in the article is "legacy content that is 3-10 years old."
- DanBC 10y ago
  The law was changed in 1990. 27 years old. These "legacy" things are between 3 and 10 years old. The law had been in effect for 17 years before Berkeley started producing video.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    OK, but what was the video created for? Not to put online, I bet.
mulmen 10y ago
But do we actually all pay a little more? Was additional funding added along with the requirement to provide captioning?
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
So Berkley should also restrict access to all the books in its library that don't have braille editions?
- mirimir 10y ago
  Maybe they could be forced to.

kartan 10y ago

> Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from “pirates” who have reused content for personal profit without consent. Or maybe there are other considerations at stake. > For better or worse, large portions of society (especially those found in academia and cities) have decided that a level playing field is more important than having any playing field. That's completely false. What people has decided is that sometimes is worth having a small cost for the big benefit for everyone that it is to have accessibility. Without a more careful case your arguments falls into the Straw Man fallacy. (This fallacy includes an attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side and attacking that "straw man" argument instead of the original one.) > This sort of stuff makes me furious and it's only going to keep happening. I hope that this video helps you to understand what's suggested for help people with disabilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPymLgfXSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPymLgfXSY It is about helping them, not about making things difficult for the rest. If you have the opportunity to talk with some disabled people that have seen their lives improved thanks to this measures probably you are going to be less furious and more happy about it. :)