3 ms·

> "people with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations to access the content that is provided". I would agree with this if this is something that

> "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
> 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 the sake of your argument, it doesn't appear to matter whether the service is "free" or whether the service provider is charging. You reason that if it's not the government, then there should not be a requirement to provide "reasonable accommodation". Can you explain why it matters whether the service is free or not? > I'd wager that's the more economically easier route Well, of course. It's almost always cheaper to not build ramps, provide captions, hire interpreters, ... > 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. What if someone is handing out free hand grenades? Again, why does it matter whether it's free? For a better analogy, consider a local company that provides nice restrooms available for public use for "white people only". Along comes a piece of legislation that says you cannot discriminate on the basis of skin color. To remain compliant, the company has two options 1. destroy the bathroom 2. remove the discrimination Suppose the company destroys the bathroom. You want to sit here and talk about how it is a free service and how does it help anyone if the company destroys the bathroom? Are you going to ask why this anti-racial discrimination bill is targeting a _free service_? If non-white people do not have the opportunity to use the bathroom, don't I think the actions of this civil rights act now resulted in opportunities being lost to everyone instead of a few? How is that a good outcome or even a win for non-white people from the eyes of general society? I'm banking on the expectation that those questions sound absurd to you. If they don't we have too fundamental of a disagreement to carry on. If the questions sound absurd, and you object to my analogy because there is no "real" basis for a bathroom being only for white people, then we can continue. You might think there is no additional effort required to make a bathroom more broadly accessible, and it's just a blatant display of racial discrimination. I hold to the analogy because you can be sure that a business will try to argue that it is more expensive to manage such a bathroom (perhaps claiming that white people are more economical with water, or whatever). We don't even have to go through such contortions if you consider that the bathroom has an automatic soap dispenser that is not reliable with darker skin colors. The ADA is 100% a piece of anti-discrimination legislation. It exist because of advocacy effort foremost by disabled people, along with allies.

gugagore 5y ago

> 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 the sake of your argument, it doesn't appear to matter whether the service is "free" or whether the service provider is charging. You reason that if it's not the government, then there should not be a requirement to provide "reasonable accommodation". Can you explain why it matters whether the service is free or not? > I'd wager that's the more economically easier route Well, of course. It's almost always cheaper to not build ramps, provide captions, hire interpreters, ... > 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. What if someone is handing out free hand grenades? Again, why does it matter whether it's free? For a better analogy, consider a local company that provides nice restrooms available for public use for "white people only". Along comes a piece of legislation that says you cannot discriminate on the basis of skin color. To remain compliant, the company has two options 1. destroy the bathroom 2. remove the discrimination Suppose the company destroys the bathroom. You want to sit here and talk about how it is a free service and how does it help anyone if the company destroys the bathroom? Are you going to ask why this anti-racial discrimination bill is targeting a _free service_? If non-white people do not have the opportunity to use the bathroom, don't I think the actions of this civil rights act now resulted in opportunities being lost to everyone instead of a few? How is that a good outcome or even a win for non-white people from the eyes of general society? I'm banking on the expectation that those questions sound absurd to you. If they don't we have too fundamental of a disagreement to carry on. If the questions sound absurd, and you object to my analogy because there is no "real" basis for a bathroom being only for white people, then we can continue. You might think there is no additional effort required to make a bathroom more broadly accessible, and it's just a blatant display of racial discrimination. I hold to the analogy because you can be sure that a business will try to argue that it is more expensive to manage such a bathroom (perhaps claiming that white people are more economical with water, or whatever). We don't even have to go through such contortions if you consider that the bathroom has an automatic soap dispenser that is not reliable with darker skin colors. The ADA is 100% a piece of anti-discrimination legislation. It exist because of advocacy effort foremost by disabled people, along with allies.