Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamadatix | Hacker News Reader

I feel as though the "sort of" is doing a lot of work there.

Iirc UC Berkeley(?) did exactly that to their YouTube library of recorded lectures due to an accessibility lawsuit.

I still remember some of the Berkeley genetics lectures as some of the best learning materials I could find for my upper-level courses. Later I tried to refer to them and found they were all gone. I wish there was any other option vs. just taking them down.

Current motto of the internet: Grab it while it's hot, enjoy it while it lasts.

I mean, there was the obvious solution of paying the money to have it captioned, which was the original order.

Berkeley instead offered this alternative solution, because they did not want to pay.

The obvious solution was for a school to use their resources not on their students but for the general public?

I guess they spent a tiny bit of money so why not 1000% times more?

I don't mind giving your child some candy on Halloween but I'm not going to pay for braces. Even though he may really need them.

As we all know, there is no middle ground between "paying for video captions" and "financing all money ever for the rest of time", and I think that's unfortunate.

I feel like there is a logical paradox here. You're using a bigger hyperbole to criticize a hyperbole. If this argument is valid then it invalidates itself.

It would be nice if they revisited it in light of AI captioning services.

I think a more accurate comparison would be burning down a library because you can't afford the manpower to check every single book for arbitrarily defined wrongthink.

Except you really don't need to do that. Your risk assessment could explain it's read only, you've done some basic searches, and that's proportionate given the content and the fact you're a small website. Job done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com