> How accessible is the course now?

Entirely irrelevant.

If a city has a public library, but refuses to build a wheelchair ramp, and an elevator to upper floors, and doesn't provide reasonable alternatives to these deficiencies, they can (and should) get sued. If the city then throws up their hand and says "Too expensive" and shuts down the library (everyone suffers), I will not be siding with the library.

▲

raw_anon_1111 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, how much good does that do anyone?

But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. Should they also be forced to take down the website if the speaker didn’t speak perfect English?

▲

BeetleB 4 days ago | parent [-]

> But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect.

This is a falsehood. The complaint was that some videos had no transcription at all.

There were other complaints, BTW - it wasn't just subtitles. There were complaints about blind people not being able to read the docs.

Edit: I think one of the (multiple) complaints was poor transcription. What I meant by "falsehood" was actually referring to an earlier comment that said something to the effect of "they provided subtitles". In some cases they did not provide subtitles.

▲

raw_anon_1111 4 days ago | parent [-]

Just doing a little research - I haven’t looked too deeply into- Google live caption has been built into Chrome since 2021 and there have been third party tools for accessibility since 2016.

But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?

▲

BeetleB 4 days ago | parent [-]

> But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?

Sorry, but the question is: Is the world a better place if organizations feel they need not comply with this law?

If the answer is yes, then go fix the law. Stop picking on the little guys.

	▲	raw_anon_1111 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The organization did comply with the law - they gave everyone the same access - none

▲

superxpro12 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You are being intentionally obtuse and completely ignoring any practical reality.

By this logic, because helen keller cant see or hear, we should eliminate all educational materials using written text and spoken word.

This is simply an insane, bad-faith take.

	▲	BeetleB 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> By this logic, because helen keller cant see or hear, we should eliminate all educational materials using written text and spoken word. I'll reiterate my comment earlier: Most people in this thread don't seem to have any idea how any of this works. No - if someone cannot see, the law doesn't say eliminate visual material. It's more like "Provide alternative means for them to understand the same concepts (while keeping the same material)." There are standards on what accommodations to provide for which disabilities. This isn't something everyone has to figure out on their own. If the standards dictate something for people who are both blind and deaf, it's because it is not technically onerous to provide for them. I don't know if the standards do for this case, though. > This is simply an insane, bad-faith take. What I find to be bad faith is people skirting around the issue that the problem (if any), is not those who complained, but the law. This isn't an isolated case. Both Harvard and MIT were also sued. And just like Berkeley, both ultimately settled. If 3 of the top universities can't fight this, it means that if you want change, lobby to change the law. Start looking into how these universities are pushing to change the law. If they aren't, you'll get a good sense of why these laws exist.