Hacker News Reader

Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

>Denying billions of people across the world access to quality information because of the needs of maybe a million deaf in the US is ridiculous and a loss for the world.

While I don't take sides on the issue, I will point out that this line of reasoning can be used to justify anything against any minority.

The whole point of having this law is to negate this argument. It is (almost by definition) counterproductive to invoke this. The law is saying a particular minority has a right, and as with most/all rights, it is irrelevant how inconvenient it is.

We could keep going back and forth about this, but this is essentially the utilitarianism vs individualism debate. It hasn't been settled for centuries.

View on HN

Laws are often written with good intentions but enforced rigidly and with little common sense. A balance is needed between individualism and utilitarianism. At what point do my civil rights, when enforced by the state, infringe on yours? Who gets to determine which rights are worth protecting? Who draws the cost/benefit line in the sand? Not all men are created equal, but in a liberal democracy we mold society into one that provides equality in spite of our innate disparities. In my opinion, this equalization should be done by raising up those less fortunate, not by punishing those with advantages.

I think the real issue here is the fact that Berkeley was giving away the videos for free. If they were charging for those videos, they could incorporate the cost of ACA compliance into the price of the video. As it stands though, the state has the right to force work without providing any compensation. ACA compliance then becomes a form of servitude. (being a public university, UC Berkeley does get some state revenue, but it is only 14-25% of the total [1][2] and much of it comes in the form of contracts & grants which can only be used for the specific project they are awarded for). To me that is the real issue here, a simple matter of being compensated for one's work. I think they shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone selling a product, but that doesn't seem to be the lay of the land. I guess this is why we can't have nice things (for free).

[1] http://ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/2016-17budge... (page 47) [2] http://cfo.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-14%20UC%20B... (Page 1)

I completely agree. The issue is that these are 'free' 'as is'.

The correct solution should be an exemption for public access/domain materials, which OTHERS can provide additional materials for as they desire, from being compliant.

There is a difference in contributing to the common good, and discriminating against differently-abled CUSTOMERS.

This is a great example of where a different group, such as a charity or some group benefiting from it (maybe students who produce and release to P.D. transcripts for extra credit) could continue the effort of making the content a more vibrant part of the knowledge of our species.

>Laws are often written with good intentions but enforced rigidly and with little common sense. A balance is needed between individualism and utilitarianism. At what point do my civil rights, when enforced by the state, infringe on yours? Who gets to determine which rights are worth protecting? Who draws the cost/benefit line in the sand? Not all men are created equal, but in a liberal democracy we mold society into one that provides equality in spite of our innate disparities.

Yes, as I said: The old individualism vs utilitarianism debate.

My point in highlighting that this is a centuries old debate is that:

1. There will be no clear obvious answer.

2. Hence a topic like this will usually garner a very lively discussion, with (mostly) no outcome.

What it comes down to is no action is being taken against a minority. The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination. To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted. This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few" this is good of the many with slightly less good for some of the few; with the solution being "good for no one".

>What it comes down to is no action is being taken against a minority.

In your earlier comment, you phrased it as "Denying billions". Either it is an action, or it is not. You cannot make it an action for only one group.

>The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination.

I truly appreciate you saying it, but do realize that this is your opinion. Ultimately, we will not know unless this goes to court (which I think UCB decided not to do).

>To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted.

Two problems with your statement:

1. "Legitimate" is used, when the very essence of the debate is whether it is legitimate or not.

2. "short sighted" is not an argument.

>This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few"

This is part of the debate. If public money is being used for this, then it is at the expense of everyone (including the few). The interpretation of the ADA rules is that for such uses, everyone should have fair access, for some definition of "fair". If UCB was private, and did not take public money, this would not be a debate.

What if a particular classroom has no impacted users, so there isn't (for example) a sign language translator in the class. Now the instructor left the door opened, and doesn't mind if someone loitering in the hallway overhears the lecture. Should the school be required to always provide a sign language interpreter, just in case a deaf person walks through the hallway and wants to observer part of the class from the hall?

Posting the videos online is just a larger version of leaving the classroom door open.

Disclaimer: I am not necessarily agreeing with UCB's decision.

Your argument can be made, but as I said elsewhere, we can only know if this is tested in court.

The counterargument to what you are saying is that leaving the door open is not done in order to benefit others in the hallway, whereas explicitly putting the videos on a web site is an active action. UCB would have trouble claiming that they're putting the videos up there, but not to benefit anyone.

Put another way, using your analogy, no one would complain if the professor decided to close the door. If people outside were listening, they have no say on the professor's decision.

Berkeley is shutting the virtual door by removing all the videos, and people ARE complaining.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com