5 ms·

> The fact that the law doesn't have an exception for compliance measures whose cost would exceed all profit from the relevant endeavor Literally the entire po

> The fact that the law doesn't have an exception for compliance measures whose cost would exceed all profit from the relevant endeavor Literally the entire point of the ADA is to force businesses to make themselves accessible when they have no inherent profit incentive to do so. > For example, UC Berkeley was forced to remove free public access to their course lecture videos because they weren't captioned That's a misleading way of phrasing it. As a public university, Berkley was never permitted to post unaccessible content online on the first place - that's a pretty unambiguous part of the ADA and is not anywhere close to new. The DOJ has been enforcing that for two decades. Berkeley did so anyway, and then was told they would have to caption them in order to keep them online. At that point, they chose to take them down.

freehunter 10y ago
I consider myself to be pretty liberal on things like this, but denying access to all because it's not accessible to some seems way overkill. That's like saying a library can't have any books that aren't also printed in braille. It's an absolutely ridiculous concept and if that's actually a real component of the ADA I cannot believe public libraries haven't been sued out of business yet.
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  Although I tend to agree with you, there are some legal measures to increase accessibility. For example, transcribing a book you own into a Braille book is not a copyright violation.
  - gech 10y ago
    Now you've got me thinking. I need the right to stream sports events to my deaf friends as I can provide a more sufficient accessibility to them.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Literally the entire point of the ADA is to force businesses to make themselves accessible when they have no inherent profit incentive to do so. There is a difference between an expense that doesn't recover its own cost and the thing shutting down your service because the cost exceeds your total profit. > That's a misleading way of phrasing it. It's literally what happened. Even if the consequence was that they never posted the videos to begin with, how is that better? It's the same outcome, the only difference is that we can specifically identify this case because it actually happened, as opposed to the untold other things we lost because they were deterred by the cost without people ever knowing that they would have existed. > At that point, they chose to take them down. And then everyone lost access to the videos -- including the hearing impaired, who might otherwise have built a support community to caption videos like these, or come together to pay someone to do it, or spurred faster development of automated captioning software etc. Are you defending the outcome?

freehunter 10y ago

I consider myself to be pretty liberal on things like this, but denying access to all because it's not accessible to some seems way overkill. That's like saying a library can't have any books that aren't also printed in braille. It's an absolutely ridiculous concept and if that's actually a real component of the ADA I cannot believe public libraries haven't been sued out of business yet.

koenigdavidmj 10y ago
Although I tend to agree with you, there are some legal measures to increase accessibility. For example, transcribing a book you own into a Braille book is not a copyright violation.
- gech 10y ago
  Now you've got me thinking. I need the right to stream sports events to my deaf friends as I can provide a more sufficient accessibility to them.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> Literally the entire point of the ADA is to force businesses to make themselves accessible when they have no inherent profit incentive to do so. There is a difference between an expense that doesn't recover its own cost and the thing shutting down your service because the cost exceeds your total profit. > That's a misleading way of phrasing it. It's literally what happened. Even if the consequence was that they never posted the videos to begin with, how is that better? It's the same outcome, the only difference is that we can specifically identify this case because it actually happened, as opposed to the untold other things we lost because they were deterred by the cost without people ever knowing that they would have existed. > At that point, they chose to take them down. And then everyone lost access to the videos -- including the hearing impaired, who might otherwise have built a support community to caption videos like these, or come together to pay someone to do it, or spurred faster development of automated captioning software etc. Are you defending the outcome?