5 ms·

The deaf community has been nothing short of begging Netflix to add captions for over 5 years now, and have essentially been ignored the entire time. The usual

The deaf community has been nothing short of begging Netflix to add captions for over 5 years now, and have essentially been ignored the entire time. The usual excuse was that it was technically impossible to add the captions (bs, really). In the last year or so they've made slight motions towards implementing ~some~ captions, but have done a very bad job of it. Most shows would just have random episodes captioned. So you start a new show, then a few episodes into the season realize you couldn't keep watching them in order because the next few episodes were uncaptioned. To say that this is frustrating, especially for an arc based show like Lost (which was their flagship example of "we are captioning for you!" for the longest time) is an understatement. This lawsuit is essentially the deaf community having reached a boiling point. These were patient people who tried for the longest time to get Netflix to act like a decent company, and it just didn't happen. It's rather sad that without this lawsuit, they probably never would.

jdludlow 15y ago
They should probably stop sending Netflix $8 per month and support a competitor instead. It's absurd that a private business can be forced via lawyers to offer a particular product. "We don't want to" should be allowed in a free society.
- xbryanx 15y ago
  That would have potentially have been a valid point to bring up in 1990 when George H. W. Bush signed the ADA into federal law, but it's not appropriate anymore that it's the law of the land. Should businesses be allowed to ignore physical mobility impairments, and not install ramps?
  - gaius 15y ago
    Actually, yes, and the reason is, if the disabled (and being able-bodied is only a temporary situation, for everyone) took their business elsewhere, those companies would lose business to those that of their own free choice did install whatever accessibility. It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads.
    - dodo53 15y ago
      That requires people who are (temporarily) able-bodied to be sufficiently foresighted and activist-y - I'm not sure consumer boycotts frequently work (either due to lack of information or coordination or it being too much effort). I agree I'd like the market to sort it out instead of law, but I don't think it's realistic. Consider access ramps/elevator requirements for example - if a fairly significant chunk of key businesses (say supermarket, banks, workplaces, transport) in an area don't all have them, the area becomes practically uninhabitable by people in wheelchairs.
    - safeaim 15y ago
      Maybe a stupid way of putting it, but given the fact that only a small percentage of the US are physically disabled, will their boycott have any impact at all?
      - gaius 15y ago
        We all grow old. That's what I mean when I say being able-bodied is only temporary.
    - finisterre 15y ago
      ADA is needed because the number of disabled people in the US isn't large enough for the free market/competition process to play out as you suggest. It will never be economically efficient for private enterprise to look after the needs of some groups, hence legislation is needed to ensure their needs are met.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads. It might be better, but it's not realistic. You might be surprised at the amount of violent crime that doesn't happen because of the law. And the free market dynamics are just not effective in cases such as for the disabled. It may not be financially possible for a small company to cater to disabled customers -- this is why the law usually requires a business of a certain size. But once you hit a certain size you can afford to accomodate the disabled. Now you're saying that a big company can say, "We don't allow disabled access", but small companies who may want to target them may not be able to afford it at all. So now you have a situation where the disabled aren't served at all because the big companies won't do it, and the small companies can't afford to.
- lukifer 15y ago
  In principle, I agree with you. On the other hand, what is the difference between "We don't want to offer captions" and "We don't want to build wheelchair ramps"? How about "We don't want to serve or hire [ethnicity]"?
  - thecoffman 15y ago
    In a free society all of those things WOULD be allowed. And most of us sane, rational people would opt not to give those discriminatory companies money. That's what freedom actually is. Its having the freedom to be an asshole, bigot or racist, and its my freedom not to support that kind of behavior with my wallet. But yes, I agree, there isn't a big difference there, and personally I'm of the opinion that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating any of it.
    - dodo53 15y ago
      it pushes a lot of work on consumers - you need a lot of information/research to know who you can buy from (and if you're being strict you'd have to follow their supplier chain also for your opinion to affect all the B2B companies). I feel like that already with sweatshops/child labour already - you hear a couple big companies when it hits mass media, but it's no doubt widely spread, so boycotting scandalised company of the day might not be effective (and just incentivise better PR/press control).
    - woodson 15y ago
      "Rational people" would weight the costs and benefits of finding out which companies have discriminatory policies and might decide that they just don't care enough for spending their time on it.
    - dablya 15y ago
      "And most of us sane, rational people would opt not to give those discriminatory companies money." I still remember all those "whites only" stores going out of business in the 50s...
    - mrj 15y ago
      Sounds nice but look at the history of business. Laissez faire was attempted and didn't work out so great. Sometimes there need to be rules and they need to be applied evenly so nobody has an advantage that others don't. If one business has to build wheelchair ramps or close caption while another doesn't, that's an unfair advantage. You can dislike government all you want, but don't pretend these things we have would magically occur without some kind of intervention.
- gkjam 15y ago
  Unfortunately, disabled individuals "voting with their dollar" will likely not be enough of an impact to cause Netflix to alter their business practice. That's why laws to protect minorities exist, because when left to the free market, such minorities cannot exert enough market force to prevent being discriminated against. There are minority groups that we protect against discrimination as a civilized society, and disabled individuals are one such.
ericd 15y ago
Am I required to change my product to make everyone happy, or capable of using it? It might make business sense, but it very well might not.
mirkules 15y ago
Interesting. I wish this article went into some of the history with Netflix and ADA compliance for people who know nothing about their past (like myself). Thanks for that insight.
sigzero 15y ago
Netflix IS working on it. There isn't any magic faerie dust to make it happen. 30% of their content has it now with a projected 80% by years end. That is pretty darn good. This is a cash grab pure and simple. I don't think the law applies to them as written anyway. Netflix isn't a "PLACE of entertainment" and you would be hard pressed to prove that in court.
- gkjam 15y ago
  This lawsuit, and threat of litigation on behalf of disabled individuals, is the only reason why they've been making the relatively quicker process this year. This isn't a cash grab, this is simply the only tool disabled persons have to force Netflix to comply with the law and accommodate them.

jdludlow 15y ago

They should probably stop sending Netflix $8 per month and support a competitor instead. It's absurd that a private business can be forced via lawyers to offer a particular product. "We don't want to" should be allowed in a free society.

xbryanx 15y ago
That would have potentially have been a valid point to bring up in 1990 when George H. W. Bush signed the ADA into federal law, but it's not appropriate anymore that it's the law of the land. Should businesses be allowed to ignore physical mobility impairments, and not install ramps?
- gaius 15y ago
  Actually, yes, and the reason is, if the disabled (and being able-bodied is only a temporary situation, for everyone) took their business elsewhere, those companies would lose business to those that of their own free choice did install whatever accessibility. It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads.
  - dodo53 15y ago
    That requires people who are (temporarily) able-bodied to be sufficiently foresighted and activist-y - I'm not sure consumer boycotts frequently work (either due to lack of information or coordination or it being too much effort). I agree I'd like the market to sort it out instead of law, but I don't think it's realistic. Consider access ramps/elevator requirements for example - if a fairly significant chunk of key businesses (say supermarket, banks, workplaces, transport) in an area don't all have them, the area becomes practically uninhabitable by people in wheelchairs.
  - safeaim 15y ago
    Maybe a stupid way of putting it, but given the fact that only a small percentage of the US are physically disabled, will their boycott have any impact at all?
    - gaius 15y ago
      We all grow old. That's what I mean when I say being able-bodied is only temporary.
  - finisterre 15y ago
    ADA is needed because the number of disabled people in the US isn't large enough for the free market/competition process to play out as you suggest. It will never be economically efficient for private enterprise to look after the needs of some groups, hence legislation is needed to ensure their needs are met.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads. It might be better, but it's not realistic. You might be surprised at the amount of violent crime that doesn't happen because of the law. And the free market dynamics are just not effective in cases such as for the disabled. It may not be financially possible for a small company to cater to disabled customers -- this is why the law usually requires a business of a certain size. But once you hit a certain size you can afford to accomodate the disabled. Now you're saying that a big company can say, "We don't allow disabled access", but small companies who may want to target them may not be able to afford it at all. So now you have a situation where the disabled aren't served at all because the big companies won't do it, and the small companies can't afford to.
lukifer 15y ago
In principle, I agree with you. On the other hand, what is the difference between "We don't want to offer captions" and "We don't want to build wheelchair ramps"? How about "We don't want to serve or hire [ethnicity]"?
- thecoffman 15y ago
  In a free society all of those things WOULD be allowed. And most of us sane, rational people would opt not to give those discriminatory companies money. That's what freedom actually is. Its having the freedom to be an asshole, bigot or racist, and its my freedom not to support that kind of behavior with my wallet. But yes, I agree, there isn't a big difference there, and personally I'm of the opinion that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating any of it.
  - dodo53 15y ago
    it pushes a lot of work on consumers - you need a lot of information/research to know who you can buy from (and if you're being strict you'd have to follow their supplier chain also for your opinion to affect all the B2B companies). I feel like that already with sweatshops/child labour already - you hear a couple big companies when it hits mass media, but it's no doubt widely spread, so boycotting scandalised company of the day might not be effective (and just incentivise better PR/press control).
  - woodson 15y ago
    "Rational people" would weight the costs and benefits of finding out which companies have discriminatory policies and might decide that they just don't care enough for spending their time on it.
  - dablya 15y ago
    "And most of us sane, rational people would opt not to give those discriminatory companies money." I still remember all those "whites only" stores going out of business in the 50s...
  - mrj 15y ago
    Sounds nice but look at the history of business. Laissez faire was attempted and didn't work out so great. Sometimes there need to be rules and they need to be applied evenly so nobody has an advantage that others don't. If one business has to build wheelchair ramps or close caption while another doesn't, that's an unfair advantage. You can dislike government all you want, but don't pretend these things we have would magically occur without some kind of intervention.
gkjam 15y ago
Unfortunately, disabled individuals "voting with their dollar" will likely not be enough of an impact to cause Netflix to alter their business practice. That's why laws to protect minorities exist, because when left to the free market, such minorities cannot exert enough market force to prevent being discriminated against. There are minority groups that we protect against discrimination as a civilized society, and disabled individuals are one such.

ericd 15y ago

Am I required to change my product to make everyone happy, or capable of using it? It might make business sense, but it very well might not.

mirkules 15y ago

Interesting. I wish this article went into some of the history with Netflix and ADA compliance for people who know nothing about their past (like myself). Thanks for that insight.

sigzero 15y ago

Netflix IS working on it. There isn't any magic faerie dust to make it happen. 30% of their content has it now with a projected 80% by years end. That is pretty darn good. This is a cash grab pure and simple. I don't think the law applies to them as written anyway. Netflix isn't a "PLACE of entertainment" and you would be hard pressed to prove that in court.

gkjam 15y ago
This lawsuit, and threat of litigation on behalf of disabled individuals, is the only reason why they've been making the relatively quicker process this year. This isn't a cash grab, this is simply the only tool disabled persons have to force Netflix to comply with the law and accommodate them.