3 ms·

This is ass-backwards. If a business has to spend extra time and effort to fulfill some regulation to provide a free service, it's just not gonna happen. Everyb

This is ass-backwards. If a business has to spend extra time and effort to fulfill some regulation to provide a free service, it's just not gonna happen. Everybody loses. Even if it wasn't a free service, if the regulations make the venture unprofitable, it won't happen. Same for taxes, etc. If the legislators want "standards", they had better pay for it out of the tax payers pockets, instead of shifting the burden to business, where it doesn't belong.

st3v3r 10y ago
UC Berkley is a Tax funded university, so your argument is bunk. And I disagree anyways; if the business wants to do something, they are responsible for following the law. That includes making reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Because we as a society have decided that it's more important that those persons be allowed to participate in society than it is for a business to make money.
- galacticpony 10y ago
  I'm making a general statement, not specific to UC Berkeley. Even if you don't consider UCB a business, most of its income does not actually come from taxes and its spending isn't going to be all that different from a private university. Clearly, their decision here was not to spend, but to delete instead. That was the economical thing to do. You're also missing the point completely. Whether a business wants to do something depends on whether it is expected to be profitable. If the laws make it unprofitable, then it doesn't want to do it. You're posing a false dilemma with "it's more important that those persons be allowed to participate in society than it is for a business to make money". If society wants participation, society should pay for it, not just business. It's just really easy for the government to use people with disabilities, because opposing such legislation is unpopular. Who decides what's reasonable, anyway? If you're a small business, building some ramp can easily break your budget. If you're McDonalds, it make no difference. Are you going to treat both companies equally? If so, you're sponsoring big corporate.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
This isn't a clear "everyone is worse off" situation. The tradeoff gets you closer to a society where everyone can participate with reasonable accommodation. Whether this level of fairness is worth the cost is a legitimate point to discuss, but it's not really fair to elide the fact that people value a fair society.
- galacticpony 10y ago
  How so? This is a rather a case where a law is being followed to the letter to an objectively worse individual outcome. It's highly questionable that having 20,000 free videos removed from public access is the intention behind the law. More likely, it's an unwelcome side-effect. Why should the law not allow an exception for free content? Why should the law put the burden squarely on the provider? The tradeoff isn't in having "everyone" participate or not, it's in who pays the bill.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    I'm judging it on rule utilitarianism more than act utilitarianism. Yes, removing videos from public access is a bad thing. There's compensating effects from following a rule that makes Berkeley take down a bunch of videos.

st3v3r 10y ago

UC Berkley is a Tax funded university, so your argument is bunk. And I disagree anyways; if the business wants to do something, they are responsible for following the law. That includes making reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Because we as a society have decided that it's more important that those persons be allowed to participate in society than it is for a business to make money.

galacticpony 10y ago
I'm making a general statement, not specific to UC Berkeley. Even if you don't consider UCB a business, most of its income does not actually come from taxes and its spending isn't going to be all that different from a private university. Clearly, their decision here was not to spend, but to delete instead. That was the economical thing to do. You're also missing the point completely. Whether a business wants to do something depends on whether it is expected to be profitable. If the laws make it unprofitable, then it doesn't want to do it. You're posing a false dilemma with "it's more important that those persons be allowed to participate in society than it is for a business to make money". If society wants participation, society should pay for it, not just business. It's just really easy for the government to use people with disabilities, because opposing such legislation is unpopular. Who decides what's reasonable, anyway? If you're a small business, building some ramp can easily break your budget. If you're McDonalds, it make no difference. Are you going to treat both companies equally? If so, you're sponsoring big corporate.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

This isn't a clear "everyone is worse off" situation. The tradeoff gets you closer to a society where everyone can participate with reasonable accommodation. Whether this level of fairness is worth the cost is a legitimate point to discuss, but it's not really fair to elide the fact that people value a fair society.

galacticpony 10y ago
How so? This is a rather a case where a law is being followed to the letter to an objectively worse individual outcome. It's highly questionable that having 20,000 free videos removed from public access is the intention behind the law. More likely, it's an unwelcome side-effect. Why should the law not allow an exception for free content? Why should the law put the burden squarely on the provider? The tradeoff isn't in having "everyone" participate or not, it's in who pays the bill.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  I'm judging it on rule utilitarianism more than act utilitarianism. Yes, removing videos from public access is a bad thing. There's compensating effects from following a rule that makes Berkeley take down a bunch of videos.