5 ms·

I'm not from USA so yes I don't know how the law works in USA. > The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new

I'm not from USA so yes I don't know how the law works in USA. > The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. But this didn't apply for the existing MIT/UCB courses did it? For any new courses, I might agree that the mandate might be necessary. But imposing this on older courses does not seem right to me. Someone is doing something for free out of their own money and time. Someone else comes along, who has the power to sue and win, says that the service that was provided for free didn't include them and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited. It's one thing to ask for and mandate accommodations for things you pay for, it's another to ask for accommodations for a free service. I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion and idea. Because of ADA's law thousands if not millions across the world are losing out on wonderful resources for education which might not be available. On the one hand I can see some people do not get the benefit without captions while many people benefit from the free service. What the law has done is to accommodate the some, now no one will receive the free service. The intention behind the law seems noble, but the outcome does not remotely justify it. Neither party wins. Is there any benefit of robbing someone else's education because you're not able to get it? > Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. Again, not from USA. But if i'm in such a position, my questions would be why aren't there closed captions for which I paid tax for? Is the tax dollars actually budgeted for creating captions? What and where is the budget being allocated for govt institutions like UCs? From the univ's perspective, captions might be available for the students, but should/is there budget for accommodating the general public? Is there a budget split up of taxpayer dollars which mandates that univ's should allocate some amount for captions for the public (note- for the public, not the students who pay for the education)? Is there difficulty in hiring? And so on. But the way I see it as a general outsider is that a "law" has been put forth saying it should accommodate deaf people too. I'm sure UCs and other universities are doing everything they can to accommodate for disabled students, I believe they have zero obligation to do anything out their goodwill for people who don't pay for their services. I believe the law pretty much backfired for whatever intentions it had. > I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university IMO this is the wrong example to give. Vint Cerf went to university which he paid for which would have probably accommodated for his disabilities. It'd help me see a better viewpoint of your side if you can cite examples of people who were deaf and benefited from the captions and significantly moved forward in life in comparison to Vint Cerf.

gugagore 5y ago
> Someone is doing something for free out of their own money and time. Someone else comes along, who has the power to sue and win, says that the service that was provided for free didn't include them and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited You are wrong to say "and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited". That is not how it goes. It is simply "people with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations to access the content that is provided". > Because of ADA's law thousands if not millions across the world are losing out on wonderful resources for education which might not be available. For you, it's a simple case of "it's the ADA's fault". Is it so difficult to think that it's {the UC, MIT, ...}'s fault for not captioning their material? Between providing captions and removing their videos, they chose removing their videos. > Is there any benefit of robbing someone else's education because you're not able to get it? It is terrible of you to make disabled people the villain in this story [1]. You say "you're not able to get it" as if that is inherent to the situation. No. Deaf people can access the lecture if it is captioned. They are able to get it. The point of the ADA is to generate legal pressure to improve accessibility and create justice. I cannot say this is the best outcome, but it is an improvement on the previous situation where you (and countless others) were not even thinking about accessibility. Now you are. [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilCripple https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilCripple
- 8589934591 5y ago
  > "people with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations to access the content that is provided". I would agree with this if this is something that they paid for or is for govt services. Govt libraries/buildings/hospitals, definitely not for private services. And they do accommodate in majority of universities. I disagree that whatever is available for free should also have accommodations made for people with disabilities for which it costs extra for the person providing the free service. > For you, it's a simple case of "it's the ADA's fault". Is it so difficult to think that it's {the UC, MIT, ...}'s fault for not captioning their material? Yes I find it difficult it's their fault since they are doing this for free. CC is available for deaf students of those universities, where they do help them out. But I don't see why they should help out for a free service. > Between providing captions and removing their videos, they chose removing their videos. I'd wager that's the more economically easier route (and likelier outcome from a cost standpoint) considering that they don't get anything in return out of this goodwill in the first place and that it would cost them more either battling the ADA in lawsuits or creating the CC. > It is terrible of you to make disabled people the villain in this story Why not? I'm all for campaigning for equal opportunity/accommodations for everyone, for services we pay for, for services we are entitled to. For any free service, there is no obligation for the service provider to do anything to accommodate anyone unless they want to. The argument feels like someone who has peanut allergy suing someone who hands out free cookies/biscuits. Also, the ADA's lawsuit and approach is the reason disabled people are being portrayed badly here, I'm not saying that the people are bad. > The point of the ADA is to generate legal pressure to improve accessibility and create justice. I cannot say this is the best outcome, but it is an improvement on the previous situation where you (and countless others) were not even thinking about accessibility. Now you are. What was the outcome? Restriction of access to all the courses available. Was that beneficial to the disabled people? I don't think so. Was that beneficial to the non disabled people? I definitely don't think so. My disagreements and questions stand. Can you please answer my questions? Why is the ADA targeting a free service ? Who will/should bear the costs of the CC to be created for the free service that's provided and why? Why isn't the ADA collaborating with the govt/univs to enhance the free service provided? If you feel that disabled people do not have the opportunity to use materials because of lack of CC, don't you think that the actions of ADA has now resulted in opportunities being lost to everyone instead of a few? How is that a good outcome or even a win for the disabled people from the eyes of the general society? I repeat again, the approach and the outcome of this is bad and unfavorable to all parties involved and has accomplished nothing for free services, in this case OCW.

gugagore 5y ago

> Someone is doing something for free out of their own money and time. Someone else comes along, who has the power to sue and win, says that the service that was provided for free didn't include them and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited You are wrong to say "and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited". That is not how it goes. It is simply "people with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations to access the content that is provided". > Because of ADA's law thousands if not millions across the world are losing out on wonderful resources for education which might not be available. For you, it's a simple case of "it's the ADA's fault". Is it so difficult to think that it's {the UC, MIT, ...}'s fault for not captioning their material? Between providing captions and removing their videos, they chose removing their videos. > Is there any benefit of robbing someone else's education because you're not able to get it? It is terrible of you to make disabled people the villain in this story [1]. You say "you're not able to get it" as if that is inherent to the situation. No. Deaf people can access the lecture if it is captioned. They are able to get it. The point of the ADA is to generate legal pressure to improve accessibility and create justice. I cannot say this is the best outcome, but it is an improvement on the previous situation where you (and countless others) were not even thinking about accessibility. Now you are. [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilCripple https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilCripple

8589934591 5y ago
> "people with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations to access the content that is provided". I would agree with this if this is something that they paid for or is for govt services. Govt libraries/buildings/hospitals, definitely not for private services. And they do accommodate in majority of universities. I disagree that whatever is available for free should also have accommodations made for people with disabilities for which it costs extra for the person providing the free service. > For you, it's a simple case of "it's the ADA's fault". Is it so difficult to think that it's {the UC, MIT, ...}'s fault for not captioning their material? Yes I find it difficult it's their fault since they are doing this for free. CC is available for deaf students of those universities, where they do help them out. But I don't see why they should help out for a free service. > Between providing captions and removing their videos, they chose removing their videos. I'd wager that's the more economically easier route (and likelier outcome from a cost standpoint) considering that they don't get anything in return out of this goodwill in the first place and that it would cost them more either battling the ADA in lawsuits or creating the CC. > It is terrible of you to make disabled people the villain in this story Why not? I'm all for campaigning for equal opportunity/accommodations for everyone, for services we pay for, for services we are entitled to. For any free service, there is no obligation for the service provider to do anything to accommodate anyone unless they want to. The argument feels like someone who has peanut allergy suing someone who hands out free cookies/biscuits. Also, the ADA's lawsuit and approach is the reason disabled people are being portrayed badly here, I'm not saying that the people are bad. > The point of the ADA is to generate legal pressure to improve accessibility and create justice. I cannot say this is the best outcome, but it is an improvement on the previous situation where you (and countless others) were not even thinking about accessibility. Now you are. What was the outcome? Restriction of access to all the courses available. Was that beneficial to the disabled people? I don't think so. Was that beneficial to the non disabled people? I definitely don't think so. My disagreements and questions stand. Can you please answer my questions? Why is the ADA targeting a free service ? Who will/should bear the costs of the CC to be created for the free service that's provided and why? Why isn't the ADA collaborating with the govt/univs to enhance the free service provided? If you feel that disabled people do not have the opportunity to use materials because of lack of CC, don't you think that the actions of ADA has now resulted in opportunities being lost to everyone instead of a few? How is that a good outcome or even a win for the disabled people from the eyes of the general society? I repeat again, the approach and the outcome of this is bad and unfavorable to all parties involved and has accomplished nothing for free services, in this case OCW.