Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 309 posts

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#201

Post by jasonlotito »

wyager wrote: post #169
aldordeah wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain to me how it is fair that, by studying a free online uncaptioned lecture, someone gets even more of an advantage over me just because they weren't born deaf.

Please explain how it's fair that organizations who are releasing educational materials for free should be forced to pay extra money (which they possibly can't afford to spare) so that their content is slightly more accessible to a vanishingly small portion of the population. Please explain how it's fair that the plaintiffs would rather that everyone lose access to this educational material than deal with the fact th…

> Please explain how it's fair that organizations who are releasing educational materials for free should be forced to pay extra money (which they possibly can't afford to spare) so that their content is slightly more accessible to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA. They have options if they choose not to follow the laws.

> Please explain how it's fair that the plaintiffs would rather that everyone lose access to this educational material than deal with the fact that maybe not everyone will be able to use it.

They do not want everyone to lose access. Instead, what they want, is for everyone to be able to use the content. Regardless, they do not want everyone to lose access. Your question is merely based on ignorance of the desires of the plaintiffs.

> Please explain how it's fair to act like a petulant child, screaming that if they can't have it, nobody can.

Because when someone breaks the law and it harms you, you have the right to seek redress in our system.

I've answered your questions. Now, please answer mine, which are written with the same care that you wrote yours.

Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with.

Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others.

Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child?

I look forward to your reply.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#202

Post by 4ydx »

The comparisons with physical locations are not the same because an owner of a property will not let somebody come along and just build a random alternate access point into the building. As far as I am aware, these videos are released in a manner that somebody else can use them. Somebody wants to add captions? They can. Freely.

If adding captions is really so simple, then the deaf institution needs to make the captions on its own. The information, after all, is freely available.

If this is not simple to do, then we should be sympathizing with the organizations that provide the content for free. Clearly the cost will be higher and the amount of available information will be restricted which hurts the larger number of users who can hear.

Maybe we should shut off the internet because there are poor people in the world who are not able to access it in the first place?

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#203

Post by mc32 »

lucaspiller wrote: post #198
mc32 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the requirement for actually matriculated students. (I wonder if they have to provide ASL signers in-class for deaf students and braille books for the blind.) What I don't see is a requirement for free courses. That would be ridiculous. Why would anyone want to make anything available if someone is going to come around and sue? Instead of suing, why not start a project to automatically CC the videos, someth…

YouTube will already automatically transcribe and add subtitles to some videos, I can't comment on the quality though: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3038280?hl=en-GB

Yes, this is exactly the thing they should pursue. This antagonistic tactic is disheartening. I mean, WTF, yes, contribute and provide CC, fansubs, whatever, but this kind of sue-happiness is a total turn-off.

Persuade people to help you, don't force people to help you, you'll get better results.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#204

Post by rtpg »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #73
6stringmerc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out…

For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"

>"it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"

You're forgetting the part where these Universities are taking public funds as well

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#205

Post by handojin »

jdreaver wrote: post #44
6stringmerc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to individual works, I don't see how this would have any bearing on your product. You're not beholden to the ADA in your creative works, from what I understand. Double the exemption for making something for free. It's the institutionalization of education that is being called out here, in that Harvard et al receive compensation (advertisement is a form of compensation - see: radio airplay) for these pro…

I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced to provide captions for their videos either.

Harvard and MIT receive (accept) grants from the federal government for producing their content. It's reasonable to expect that in making this content available, they will accommodate all taxpayers. IOW, I'm not sure you understand the principle of the situation.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#206

Post by handojin »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #73
6stringmerc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out…

For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"

Nobody is telling them it's illegal to do so. Merely that they must pay for excluding the 'deaf part of humanity'.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#207

Post by handojin »

wyager wrote: post #172
justcommenting wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so access to knowledge--most of which, it's worth noting, is massively subsidized by taxpayers in the form of grants and related overhead--is a luxury good? that's not a world i want to live in; access to knowledge is foundational infrastructure.

If you want widespread knowledge, don't make it impossible to give knowledge away for free.

Nobody is making it impossible. People are asking (by means of the public courts, as is their right) for equal access to that knowledge.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#208

Post by wyager »

jasonlotito wrote: post #201
wyager wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how it's fair that organizations who are releasing educational materials for free should be forced to pay extra money (which they possibly can't afford to spare) so that their content is slightly more accessible to a vanishingly small portion of the population. Please explain how it's fair that the plaintiffs would rather that everyone lose access to this educational material than deal with the fact th…

> Please explain how it's fair that organizations who are releasing educational materials for free should be forced to pay extra money (which they possibly can't afford to spare) so that their content is slightly more accessible to a vanishingly small portion of the population. Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA. They have options if they choose not to follow the laws. > Please explain how it's fair tha…

>Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA.

Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that. Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA.

>They have options if they choose not to follow the laws.

What do you mean by this?

>They do not want everyone to lose access.

Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service.

>Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with.

Again, it's not established that they were breaking the law.

I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws. If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral.

>Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others.

I don't feel that I have this right. I feel that deaf people don't have the right to demand that educational organizations curate information in a way that suits their fancy. How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili?

>Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child?

Nice ad hominem. You aren't even explaining why you're calling me that; you're literally just name-calling.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#209

Post by handojin »

seanflyon wrote: post #176
eli wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So lobby to change the law?

Perhaps a good first step would be to have a discussion "For the purposes of armchair moralizing", not about the law as it is written, but how it should be.

Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed?

If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'.

I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question:

What is just?

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#210

Post by cwbrandsma »

binarysolo wrote: post #146

I know several of the lawyers involved on the plaintiff's end (several of them blind and/or deaf) on a friendship, nonprofessional level -- and I'm noticing there's a lot of misunderstanding in the comments. However I am not a lawyer nor am I hugely aware of the nuances of the issues, so take this with a grain of salt. Basically the law firm in question is using lawsuits as a method of social activism to compel large…

The worry of a lot of us is that the cheapest and easiest way to comply is to remove the content. Once gone the problem is solved. That may not be the intent, but if I were in the universities shoes that is EXACTLY what I would do. Even worse if I have to pay lawyers and transcribers.
Post reply on HN