12 ms·

People with disabilities often struggle to find content they can consume because it's not a11y friendly. Unfortunately in this case lawyers are capitalizing on

People with disabilities often struggle to find content they can consume because it's not a11y friendly. Unfortunately in this case lawyers are capitalizing on this law that was made to help people with disabilities to go after websites that are not a11y friendly. Maybe before shutting down you should consider making your content a11y friendly by adding captions to your videos. It is extra work but consider you may be helping a portion of the population that is often underserved.

pfortuny 4y ago
He has been helping people. Please do not frame this as “not helping”. Frame this as what it is: an excellent example of abuse of the law which is per se wrong and harmful.
fsckboy 4y ago
> helping a portion of the population that is often underserved somebody has a handicap, they are not underserved, that's a political euphemism, they underappreciate the standard servings. I'm all for helping people, but it needs to be in light of a cost-benefit calculation, including who pays the cost and who-all receives benefits, public and private goods (closed captions do benefit more than the deaf)... I guess I'm saying, this needs to be done in the light of day and judiciously, with more balance than just private aggrievement. If this guy in Israel or Berkeley is sharing material that we-the-people benefit from and think needs to be accessible, this "wound" should be allowed to fester a bit while a reasonable cure is found, rather than shutting the whole things down. Reminds me of a thought I often have when old laws apply to novel new situations and harsh judgements are passed down, I wish the judge could rule "hey, nobody thought of this before, so we're going to let this one go, but we're gonna rule the opposite way in the future so correct the law, and/or get your act together".
carapace 4y ago
This. I cannot believe the amount of strident anti-accessibility sentiment in this thread, it has to be coming mostly from the young and able-bodied? This has already been discussed and the question is settled, to the point of being actual law: civilized societies make allowances for people with disabilities. We are not some "Lord of the Flies" barbarians to say "f*ck the deaf" are we? It's 2022, captioning is a solved problem.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Captioning in English may be a solved problem (and admittedly the auto-captioning by YouTube is moderately decent). Requiring captioning for all content obviously puts more of a burden on someone. Have you close-captioned all videos you've uploaded to various platforms?
  - carapace 4y ago
    I think I'm more sympathetic to people with disabilities because for several years I was close friends with a man who was born quadriplegic. His mom caught a virus while he was gestating and so his arms and legs are gnarled and useless, his spine is curved like the letter "c". Going around with him in his electric wheelchair was a learning experience for me. Simple things like using the sidewalk or taking the bus could be extremely challenging for him. You want to talk about "burden" to me? Go sleep in a parking lot next to a crippled man for a few months and "then we'll talk" as the dramatic idiots like to say. Civilized people make allowances for folks who, as we say, are challenged. It's only natural. It's no burden to be a good person, it's its own reward. > Have you close-captioned all videos you've uploaded to various platforms? FFS yes. It's not that bleedin' hard, innit? I'm only bothering to type this because I have a level of basic respect for you bombcar based on some of your other comments. You're on the wrong side of this argument amigo.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Can you please upload an audio clip of your comment, or edit your comment to be more screen reader friendly? My screen reader gets tripped up with whatever "f*ck" is supposed to mean, it sounds like a zipper.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  If the deaf want to listen to the content I make they can use their own speech to text system. If it's a solved problem like you said there should be no issue with that. Deaf people can gain access to content without having to force everyone else to cater to them.
- sparrish 4y ago

pfortuny 4y ago

He has been helping people. Please do not frame this as “not helping”. Frame this as what it is: an excellent example of abuse of the law which is per se wrong and harmful.

fsckboy 4y ago

> helping a portion of the population that is often underserved somebody has a handicap, they are not underserved, that's a political euphemism, they underappreciate the standard servings. I'm all for helping people, but it needs to be in light of a cost-benefit calculation, including who pays the cost and who-all receives benefits, public and private goods (closed captions do benefit more than the deaf)... I guess I'm saying, this needs to be done in the light of day and judiciously, with more balance than just private aggrievement. If this guy in Israel or Berkeley is sharing material that we-the-people benefit from and think needs to be accessible, this "wound" should be allowed to fester a bit while a reasonable cure is found, rather than shutting the whole things down. Reminds me of a thought I often have when old laws apply to novel new situations and harsh judgements are passed down, I wish the judge could rule "hey, nobody thought of this before, so we're going to let this one go, but we're gonna rule the opposite way in the future so correct the law, and/or get your act together".

carapace 4y ago

This. I cannot believe the amount of strident anti-accessibility sentiment in this thread, it has to be coming mostly from the young and able-bodied? This has already been discussed and the question is settled, to the point of being actual law: civilized societies make allowances for people with disabilities. We are not some "Lord of the Flies" barbarians to say "f*ck the deaf" are we? It's 2022, captioning is a solved problem.

bombcar 4y ago
Captioning in English may be a solved problem (and admittedly the auto-captioning by YouTube is moderately decent). Requiring captioning for all content obviously puts more of a burden on someone. Have you close-captioned all videos you've uploaded to various platforms?
- carapace 4y ago
  I think I'm more sympathetic to people with disabilities because for several years I was close friends with a man who was born quadriplegic. His mom caught a virus while he was gestating and so his arms and legs are gnarled and useless, his spine is curved like the letter "c". Going around with him in his electric wheelchair was a learning experience for me. Simple things like using the sidewalk or taking the bus could be extremely challenging for him. You want to talk about "burden" to me? Go sleep in a parking lot next to a crippled man for a few months and "then we'll talk" as the dramatic idiots like to say. Civilized people make allowances for folks who, as we say, are challenged. It's only natural. It's no burden to be a good person, it's its own reward. > Have you close-captioned all videos you've uploaded to various platforms? FFS yes. It's not that bleedin' hard, innit? I'm only bothering to type this because I have a level of basic respect for you bombcar based on some of your other comments. You're on the wrong side of this argument amigo.
googlryas 4y ago
Can you please upload an audio clip of your comment, or edit your comment to be more screen reader friendly? My screen reader gets tripped up with whatever "f*ck" is supposed to mean, it sounds like a zipper.
charcircuit 4y ago
If the deaf want to listen to the content I make they can use their own speech to text system. If it's a solved problem like you said there should be no issue with that. Deaf people can gain access to content without having to force everyone else to cater to them.
sparrish 4y ago