> So, one might argue that it's stupid that Berkeley was required by law to remove inaccessible content. But if that requirement wasn't there, the law would hav

> So, one might argue that it's stupid that Berkeley was required by law to remove inaccessible content. But if that requirement wasn't there, the law would have no teeth, and other content wouldn't be made accessible. I'll argue that it's stupid that the law requires Berkeley to make its content accessible. If accessibility is something society has determined is worthwhile (I think we can all agree that it is), then it should be funded by society. Unfunded mandates are no way to run society.