3 ms·

You're missing important context, which is that they were required by (federal) law to provide said accommodation, and they failed to do it (some would say they

by BeetleB 11mo ago

You're missing important context, which is that they were required by (federal) law to provide said accommodation, and they failed to do it (some would say they chose not to do it). It was easier (cheaper) to pull the plug. Don't blame the litigant. If you don't like it, change federal law.

blitz_skull 11mo ago
They got sued for not having subtitles… no thanks. I think I’ll blame the chucklefucks that thought, “Oh an opportunity for a quick buck” and resulted in everyone losing a valuable resource.
- rat87 11mo ago
  It's not about money it's about making sure things are accessible. The ADA is one of the reasons America is more accessible then Europe. Lawsuits are the enforcement mechanism
  - blitz_skull 11mo ago
    Your argument is that someone sued Berkeley for posting free education materials online purely in the name of accessibility and not to make a quick buck? Free education provided at zero profit to Berkeley, to great benefit to the public, and it was just the wholesome desire for subtitles that made the case? Bullshit.
    - BeetleB 11mo ago
      > and not to make a quick buck? Tell us - how much money did they make?
  - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
    How accessible is the course now?
    - pxc 11mo ago
      How is malicious compliance the fault of someone who asks for disability accomodations? It is unfortunate that the ADA is designed so that the only mechanism of enforcement of disability rights is lawsuits. :-\ Maybe there should be some exceptions around things provided on a "best-effort" basis, if they can be very carefully crafted.
      - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        For context: I have cerebral palsy. Play the smallest fiddle for me, it only affects my left hand and slightly my left foot. But I’ve been a part time fitness instructor, properly conditioned I have run decently (10 minute mile) up to a 15K before my slight favoring of my right leg takes it’s toll and I’ve been a gym rat since 1990 and I just left the gym. But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me.
        BeetleB 11mo ago
        > But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me. And you should not expect all disabled people in the country to waive their rights just because you do.
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content.
        BeetleB 11mo ago
        Edit: Just realized the library discussion was in another thread - but the discussion was still with you so I'm keeping it in this comment. > So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? He didn't have access before, and he doesn't have access now. Nothing is worse for him. It's not his responsibility to provide the service to others. It is the library's, and they clearly failed and are rightfully blamed for no one having access. If I were a normal person in the town, I would blame them, not the person filing the lawsuit. If the library shut down because they had clear mold issues they refused to pay to fix, would you blame the immunocompromised, at risk person who filed the lawsuit? Or would you say the library should get its act together and provide a safe/healthy environment? Imagine a school shutting down because they cannot afford all these new colored students that they could exclude before. Are you going to blame the colored students for insisting on their rights? This is basic Civil Rights 101. You can't use the excuse of "we don't have money" to discriminate, which UCBerkeley was clearly doing. > Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content. Nothing is free. The library patron paid for it via taxes, as did everyone else. Just as everyone pays federal taxes, as did the person in another state who sued UC Berkeley. He's paying, and not getting what he is owed. If you don't like it, just don't take federal funds. Many organizations' web sites are inaccessible, and that's totally OK and legal.
- brendoelfrendo 11mo ago
  Yeah, and without subtitles, the course content is not accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing... which the law says it has to be. UC Berkeley decided not to make their content accessible, and when someone complained, they took it all apart rather than making a reasonable (and legally required) accommodation. I guess I don't see why I'd blame the person filing the lawsuit here. UC Berkeley could have just... put up subtitles.
  - Dylan16807 11mo ago
    It had subtitles. The demand was better subtitles, and the project had barely any budget. While I think fixing it or even having a fundraiser would have been a much better response, I do put a good share of blame on the person that filed the lawsuit against a free side project.
  - someguyiguess 11mo ago
    The person could have volunteered to write the subtitles themselves or, if they were deaf, to hire someone or even ask someone to volunteer to write subtitles. Or any other number of solutions. To jump immediately to litigation is aggressive and shows that their true motive was not to actually enable the production of courses with good subtitles.
    - BeetleB 11mo ago
      Why should they do any of that when Berkeley was in clear violation of the law, and easily demonstrated to be at fault? As I said - if this is such an obvious wrong, fix the damn law. As it is written, Berkeley didn't have a leg to stand on.
    - brendoelfrendo 11mo ago
      Why is the onus on the person with the disability to fix the lack of accommodation for the disability? A lawsuit is their remedy. Berkeley chose the laziest form of compliance rather than attempting to do the right thing.
noAnswer 11mo ago
"No plaintiff, no judge."
zhivota 11mo ago
It's pretty easy to blame the litigant here. Without one, the courses would still be up.

by BeetleB 11mo ago

blitz_skull 11mo ago

They got sued for not having subtitles… no thanks. I think I’ll blame the chucklefucks that thought, “Oh an opportunity for a quick buck” and resulted in everyone losing a valuable resource.

rat87 11mo ago
It's not about money it's about making sure things are accessible. The ADA is one of the reasons America is more accessible then Europe. Lawsuits are the enforcement mechanism
- blitz_skull 11mo ago
  Your argument is that someone sued Berkeley for posting free education materials online purely in the name of accessibility and not to make a quick buck? Free education provided at zero profit to Berkeley, to great benefit to the public, and it was just the wholesome desire for subtitles that made the case? Bullshit.
  - BeetleB 11mo ago
    > and not to make a quick buck? Tell us - how much money did they make?
- raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
  How accessible is the course now?
  - pxc 11mo ago
    How is malicious compliance the fault of someone who asks for disability accomodations? It is unfortunate that the ADA is designed so that the only mechanism of enforcement of disability rights is lawsuits. :-\ Maybe there should be some exceptions around things provided on a "best-effort" basis, if they can be very carefully crafted.
    - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
      For context: I have cerebral palsy. Play the smallest fiddle for me, it only affects my left hand and slightly my left foot. But I’ve been a part time fitness instructor, properly conditioned I have run decently (10 minute mile) up to a 15K before my slight favoring of my right leg takes it’s toll and I’ve been a gym rat since 1990 and I just left the gym. But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me.
      - BeetleB 11mo ago
        > But I would never expect someone giving out a free service to spend extra money to make accommodations for me. And you should not expect all disabled people in the country to waive their rights just because you do.
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content.
        BeetleB 11mo ago
        Edit: Just realized the library discussion was in another thread - but the discussion was still with you so I'm keeping it in this comment. > So how did that work out for the hypothetical “disabled person”? He didn't have access before, and he doesn't have access now. Nothing is worse for him. It's not his responsibility to provide the service to others. It is the library's, and they clearly failed and are rightfully blamed for no one having access. If I were a normal person in the town, I would blame them, not the person filing the lawsuit. If the library shut down because they had clear mold issues they refused to pay to fix, would you blame the immunocompromised, at risk person who filed the lawsuit? Or would you say the library should get its act together and provide a safe/healthy environment? Imagine a school shutting down because they cannot afford all these new colored students that they could exclude before. Are you going to blame the colored students for insisting on their rights? This is basic Civil Rights 101. You can't use the excuse of "we don't have money" to discriminate, which UCBerkeley was clearly doing. > Now they nor anyone else has access to the free content. Nothing is free. The library patron paid for it via taxes, as did everyone else. Just as everyone pays federal taxes, as did the person in another state who sued UC Berkeley. He's paying, and not getting what he is owed. If you don't like it, just don't take federal funds. Many organizations' web sites are inaccessible, and that's totally OK and legal.
brendoelfrendo 11mo ago
Yeah, and without subtitles, the course content is not accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing... which the law says it has to be. UC Berkeley decided not to make their content accessible, and when someone complained, they took it all apart rather than making a reasonable (and legally required) accommodation. I guess I don't see why I'd blame the person filing the lawsuit here. UC Berkeley could have just... put up subtitles.
- Dylan16807 11mo ago
  It had subtitles. The demand was better subtitles, and the project had barely any budget. While I think fixing it or even having a fundraiser would have been a much better response, I do put a good share of blame on the person that filed the lawsuit against a free side project.
- someguyiguess 11mo ago
  The person could have volunteered to write the subtitles themselves or, if they were deaf, to hire someone or even ask someone to volunteer to write subtitles. Or any other number of solutions. To jump immediately to litigation is aggressive and shows that their true motive was not to actually enable the production of courses with good subtitles.
  - BeetleB 11mo ago
    Why should they do any of that when Berkeley was in clear violation of the law, and easily demonstrated to be at fault? As I said - if this is such an obvious wrong, fix the damn law. As it is written, Berkeley didn't have a leg to stand on.
  - brendoelfrendo 11mo ago
    Why is the onus on the person with the disability to fix the lack of accommodation for the disability? A lawsuit is their remedy. Berkeley chose the laziest form of compliance rather than attempting to do the right thing.

noAnswer 11mo ago

"No plaintiff, no judge."

zhivota 11mo ago

It's pretty easy to blame the litigant here. Without one, the courses would still be up.