3 ms·
Sounds to me like the way the law is enforced should change then. There should be a fine for not following the law if the content is removed or not updated. If
by jjeaff 6y ago
Sounds to me like the way the law is enforced should change then. There should be a fine for not following the law if the content is removed or not updated. If the fine is sufficiently high, then there will be no incentive to just remove the content. There will still be a disincentive to create it in the first place, but at least existing content won't disappear.
- bladegash 6y agoI agree with you, since unfortunately the only real way to enforce the ADA is through private citizens filing civil suit. Regardless, a lack of more effective means for enforcement does not absolve Berkeley of failing to follow the law, especially when they had internal resources to make their material accessible and chose not to do so. Edit: apologies, misread your post and that is an interesting approach. Another way is to make the university pay back a portion of the federal funding they received, up to whatever amount they estimate it would take to make the materials accessible.
- monkeywork 6y agoThis seems like a poor idea. 1. Release content not due to requirement but for general good. 2. Get sued because it's not captioned. 3. Have insufficient funds to caption so you pull material. 4. Get fined for pulling material. 5. Watch as no one does step 1 anymore.
- jjeaff 6y agoIt's not a requirement for everyone. Just federally funded groups. Also, these, days, I'm pretty sure you can just turn on captioning and youtube will use voice recognition to do a decent job of captioning your video for free.