3 ms·

The problem isn't that attorneys can profiteer. The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time and money to make available a public resource that you're not m

The problem isn't that attorneys can profiteer. The problem is that if you spend a bunch of time and money to make available a public resource that you're not making any money off of, you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone... The unfortunate end result of that is certain segments of the population treated as second-class citizens.
- drdeca 4y ago
  Then either whoever wants to fix that problem should pay for the additional costs, or accept that they aren't willing to do what is needed to fix the problem.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Conflating "willingness to do" with "ability to pay" is a fundamental attribution error.
    - drdeca 4y ago
      ok, not willing-and-able then.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        Ah, so not-rich people ought to just accept that social change is only supposed to be driven by the rich, and stop passing laws and suing people. That's certainly one vision for society, but not one I like.
        drdeca 4y ago
        If you want to do it with a law, then the government should pay for it, not punish people for providing benefit to others.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  If the way to make people not be "second-class citizens" is just by taking away and destroying other people's things, rather than by making more things available to them, then I don't think it's something we should do.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    You're arguing for a dichotomy that doesn't exist. I've heard excuses my entire life why accessibility laws are impossible and costly to apply. Meanwhile most infractions I see are egregious, easy to fix, and not punished. With Covid we changed our entire lifestyle, we modified facilities with plastic screens, markers on the floors, instituted work from home, all of this practically overnight. Meanwhile all over the western world you've got decades-long ongoing lawsuits to make the most basic of accessibility accommodations available. In addition to that every public space, physical or digital, is made and thought through according to very specific accessibility requirements: the normal range of human abilities. In the majority of cases it's not anymore complicated to make a website accessible for the people who sit slightly out of that range. Open your website, put a blindfold on, install a screenreader and go through it. Next put on earplugs and do the same thing, next tie your arm behind your back and do the same thing. It sounds silly but it'll take two hours max and the issues will be self-evident. Don't tell me the guy who has been at it for 15 years didn't have time to do this, and don't tell me he gives a crap if he didn't. He didn't give a crap then and he doesn't give a crap now. I'm sure he put plenty of thought into making his website responsive so it's accessible to mobile users but you don't see him complaining about that.
    - coryrc 4y ago
      > You're arguing for a dichotomy that doesn't exist. It literally exists: https://reason.com/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-online-vide/ https://reason.com/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-o...
      - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        Not a dichotomy, the third option of making your website accessible is right there within their reach. Them putting their hands up and saying "guess we'll do nothing" is not evidence that they couldn't have. I could have done that with two interns over a summer in 2017, I've done much larger labeling projects with fewer resources. Had they even thought about accessibility before being called on it, they could even have done it over time as they were recording the videos, surely they put resources into that.
- bombcar 4y ago
  That can be solved by providing assistance directly to those segments in some cases. For example, we require wheelchair ramps at commercial buildings and apartments of a certain size and even motels must have "wheelchair accessible" units, even if some are only accessible by stairs. But we don't require every single house to have a wheelchair lift or ramp, but we can help pay for those to be installed on the houses that have someone who needs them. Similarly, instead of requiring every website to comply with X, Y, or Zed, require it of the "commercial players" and provide assistance services to those who cannot access the rest of the web.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Similarly, instead of requiring every website to comply with X, Y, or Zed, require it of the "commercial players" and provide assistance services to those who cannot access the rest of the web. That's already the case. The ADA doesn't apply to your house or personal non-commercial websites.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The ADA is not the law of the land in Israel unless something changed drastically recently.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        The article says "chase innocent businesses" and that their new venture has courses limited to 500 people, which seems to indicate similar exemptions in their version.
        eecc 4y ago
        Never seen the previous sites but I get the impression they were free CC stuff. The author flipped out when he got _required_ to implement accessibility for a best-effort, free thing he gave away and is now commercializing; maintaining it under the exemption he couldn’t afford for a free service, out of spite
- some_random 4y ago
  I'm not sure if "not being allowed to force people giving free resources to do more work to accommodate you" is what makes someone a second-class citizen
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Do you feel the same about requiring healthcare workers to wear gloves during surgery, to accommodate my need to not get an infection?
    - some_random 4y ago
      There's a very clear distinction between doing harm to someone and allowing someone to consume content that once again, is made and distributed for free.
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  [flagged]
- Atreiden 4y ago
  Only if this extends to government programs and for-profit enterprise. Freely provided resources should not be subject to the same scrutinies. I am hugely in favor of accessibility programs and legislation, but this is plainly a poor implementation. The fact is that, if you're differently abled, you will have different experiences and resources you can utilize. Government + enterprise services should absolutely accommodate this, but the average person or nonprofit should not be bound by these restrictions. You would never require all residential properties to have ramp access, for instance.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"The unfortunate end result of that is certain segments of the population treated as second-class citizens." I wouldn't go that far. The uncomfortable truth is that we do have people who require special accommodations and those accommodations can often be expensive and rarely utilized. It makes sense to enforce such accommodations for things like building codes and government websites. But for most individuals making content online, full compliance is too costly for something that isn't going to be seen by a wide audience in the first place. I think if the author hadn't been sued and someone approached him asking for captions there is a good chance that person could have been reasonably accommodated.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Isn’t that already the case? If a restaurant has a wheelchair ramp, but I still can’t afford to eat there, have they discriminated against me? Where do you think my “rights to patronage” should start and stop? Why arbitrarily stop at wheelchairs? Ultimately, if society thinks disabled people deserve full access to all private establishments, society should pay for it. Raise taxes, and fund it.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> you shouldn't be forced to choose between spending way more money on it or taking it away from everyone... The unfortunate end result of that is certain segments of the population treated as second-class citizens.

drdeca 4y ago
Then either whoever wants to fix that problem should pay for the additional costs, or accept that they aren't willing to do what is needed to fix the problem.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Conflating "willingness to do" with "ability to pay" is a fundamental attribution error.
  - drdeca 4y ago
    ok, not willing-and-able then.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      Ah, so not-rich people ought to just accept that social change is only supposed to be driven by the rich, and stop passing laws and suing people. That's certainly one vision for society, but not one I like.
      - drdeca 4y ago
        If you want to do it with a law, then the government should pay for it, not punish people for providing benefit to others.
josephcsible 4y ago
If the way to make people not be "second-class citizens" is just by taking away and destroying other people's things, rather than by making more things available to them, then I don't think it's something we should do.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  You're arguing for a dichotomy that doesn't exist. I've heard excuses my entire life why accessibility laws are impossible and costly to apply. Meanwhile most infractions I see are egregious, easy to fix, and not punished. With Covid we changed our entire lifestyle, we modified facilities with plastic screens, markers on the floors, instituted work from home, all of this practically overnight. Meanwhile all over the western world you've got decades-long ongoing lawsuits to make the most basic of accessibility accommodations available. In addition to that every public space, physical or digital, is made and thought through according to very specific accessibility requirements: the normal range of human abilities. In the majority of cases it's not anymore complicated to make a website accessible for the people who sit slightly out of that range. Open your website, put a blindfold on, install a screenreader and go through it. Next put on earplugs and do the same thing, next tie your arm behind your back and do the same thing. It sounds silly but it'll take two hours max and the issues will be self-evident. Don't tell me the guy who has been at it for 15 years didn't have time to do this, and don't tell me he gives a crap if he didn't. He didn't give a crap then and he doesn't give a crap now. I'm sure he put plenty of thought into making his website responsive so it's accessible to mobile users but you don't see him complaining about that.
  - coryrc 4y ago
    > You're arguing for a dichotomy that doesn't exist. It literally exists: https://reason.com/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-online-vide/ https://reason.com/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-o...
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
      Not a dichotomy, the third option of making your website accessible is right there within their reach. Them putting their hands up and saying "guess we'll do nothing" is not evidence that they couldn't have. I could have done that with two interns over a summer in 2017, I've done much larger labeling projects with fewer resources. Had they even thought about accessibility before being called on it, they could even have done it over time as they were recording the videos, surely they put resources into that.
bombcar 4y ago
That can be solved by providing assistance directly to those segments in some cases. For example, we require wheelchair ramps at commercial buildings and apartments of a certain size and even motels must have "wheelchair accessible" units, even if some are only accessible by stairs. But we don't require every single house to have a wheelchair lift or ramp, but we can help pay for those to be installed on the houses that have someone who needs them. Similarly, instead of requiring every website to comply with X, Y, or Zed, require it of the "commercial players" and provide assistance services to those who cannot access the rest of the web.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Similarly, instead of requiring every website to comply with X, Y, or Zed, require it of the "commercial players" and provide assistance services to those who cannot access the rest of the web. That's already the case. The ADA doesn't apply to your house or personal non-commercial websites.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The ADA is not the law of the land in Israel unless something changed drastically recently.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      The article says "chase innocent businesses" and that their new venture has courses limited to 500 people, which seems to indicate similar exemptions in their version.
      - eecc 4y ago
        Never seen the previous sites but I get the impression they were free CC stuff. The author flipped out when he got _required_ to implement accessibility for a best-effort, free thing he gave away and is now commercializing; maintaining it under the exemption he couldn’t afford for a free service, out of spite
some_random 4y ago
I'm not sure if "not being allowed to force people giving free resources to do more work to accommodate you" is what makes someone a second-class citizen
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Do you feel the same about requiring healthcare workers to wear gloves during surgery, to accommodate my need to not get an infection?
  - some_random 4y ago
    There's a very clear distinction between doing harm to someone and allowing someone to consume content that once again, is made and distributed for free.
throwawaysleep 4y ago
[flagged]
Atreiden 4y ago
Only if this extends to government programs and for-profit enterprise. Freely provided resources should not be subject to the same scrutinies. I am hugely in favor of accessibility programs and legislation, but this is plainly a poor implementation. The fact is that, if you're differently abled, you will have different experiences and resources you can utilize. Government + enterprise services should absolutely accommodate this, but the average person or nonprofit should not be bound by these restrictions. You would never require all residential properties to have ramp access, for instance.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"The unfortunate end result of that is certain segments of the population treated as second-class citizens." I wouldn't go that far. The uncomfortable truth is that we do have people who require special accommodations and those accommodations can often be expensive and rarely utilized. It makes sense to enforce such accommodations for things like building codes and government websites. But for most individuals making content online, full compliance is too costly for something that isn't going to be seen by a wide audience in the first place. I think if the author hadn't been sued and someone approached him asking for captions there is a good chance that person could have been reasonably accommodated.
parkingrift 4y ago
Isn’t that already the case? If a restaurant has a wheelchair ramp, but I still can’t afford to eat there, have they discriminated against me? Where do you think my “rights to patronage” should start and stop? Why arbitrarily stop at wheelchairs? Ultimately, if society thinks disabled people deserve full access to all private establishments, society should pay for it. Raise taxes, and fund it.