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

281–290 of 309 posts

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

#281

Post by jasonlotito »

wyager wrote: post #208
jasonlotito wrote: post #201

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. 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 off…

> Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that.

So if someone or a company feels they shouldn't have to follow a law, you are okay with them not having to answer for breaking the law?

> Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA.

This is why they are being sued. Some think they are. Considering your swahili statement, you disagree with the American legal system and the way it works.

> What do you mean by this?

I'm not sure what you don't understand. It's English, and it says exactly what I wanted it to say. Are you suggesting they were forced to break the law?

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

Considering the other provisions of the ADA and their non-impact on free services offered by countless other business both big and small all across the country, you'd need to back this up with real, hard evidence. Please do.

> I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws.

In your opinion immoral laws. Clearly others do not agree with you.

Would you support someone breaking a law they considered immoral and you considered moral if breaking the law harmed you?

> If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral.

It does not forbid this. If you think this is what the case is about, you are ignorant.

> How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili?

People are allowed to sue others they feel have wronged them.

Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to sue others they feel have broken the law or wronged them?

> Nice ad hominem.

So you can dish it out but can't take it yourself. So you really are a petulant, self-entitled child.

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

#282

Post by loco5niner »

justcommenting wrote: post #152
ars wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would you rather they don't distribute it at all, if they can't (or won't) caption it? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm actually asking you.) Keep in mind that these are recordings of a professor talking - there is no script, no captions exist already. The choice is paying for captioning, or not releasing at all. If they are unwilling to pay, which should, in your opinion, they pick: Not release, or release without…

this is a false choice; no one would credibly make that sort of claim about audio-only courses in podcast form or video recordings without audio. you're focusing on the economics, and that's fine, but the court is focusing on whether it complies with the law.

No, it is not a false choice.

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

#283

Post by loco5niner »

sp332 wrote: post #264
sadfaceunread wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what about any charitable effort that discriminates on the basis of a protected class. If you can't do something for free to help one group without excluding some others no charity would be possible. Should MIT/Harvard intentionally avoid captioning? No. Should the government force them to use CCing? Hell no.

Your charitable cause is putting some people at a disadvantage then. If your charitable effort somehow must discriminate, it should do it in favor of the less-privileged group.

So, I should only help the bottom 1% and not help the bottom 2% - 5%?

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

#284

Post by loco5niner »

sp332 wrote: post #262
pjscott wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a whole lot of people, I think it's safe to say that the answer is yes: the deal is unbearable. I personally would not bother putting videos online if I had to go through some closed captioning hassle, and I doubt I'm particularly special here. You can argue that people ought to be okay with the extra effort of closed captioning, but don't mistake that for an argument that they will be.

How do you defend that attitude to all the deaf people out there who want to know what you put in your video and can't?

Not OP, but I would defend it with something similar to his statement above. Basically, I want to get the content out, and the extra effort (if required) would be enough for me to say basically "forget it". I'd rather get the content out and have a small subset of people not be able to access it, than not get it out at all. Certainly, there are other ways to make content available to specific user groups that requiring the original content creator to build it in from the beginning.

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

#285

Post by loco5niner »

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #104
jdreaver wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, then who will pay for it, either in time or money? You are free to go caption videos all you want, but why should people be forced to caption videos they make in their spare time?

No-one is saying that anyone should be forced to do anything. Personally, I caption the hobby videos that I put on YouTube, because doing so brings in far more views, both domestically and from around the world.

> No-one is saying that anyone should be forced to do anything.

That's actually exactly what they are saying...

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

#286

Post by loco5niner »

Sanddancer wrote: post #115
erok wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

Which means you'll have just as much access to the knowledge as deaf people. Accessibility should never be an add-on.

I believe the point is that if a barrier to produce 'a thing' is raised, people will be less likely to produce more of 'a thing'.

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

#287

Post by loco5niner »

SeanLuke wrote: post #255
neilcrj wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is their source: "We estimate that 30.0 million or 12.7% of Americans ≥ 12 years had bilateral hearing loss from 2001–2008, and this estimate increases to 48.1 million or 20.3% when also including individuals with unilateral hearing loss." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564588/

Ah lawyer weaselwords. From the paper, that definition consists almost entirely of people who don't need closed captioning,

> lawyer weaselwords

I like it

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

#288

Post by loco5niner »

ljf wrote: post #143
shaunol wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me so sad, it makes me wonder why the National Association of the Deaf doesn't try to encourage recruiting volunteers to the association to help with closed captioning. With this litigation I feel they're only alienating those that can actually help their cause.

Yeah, we could get other charities to build their own ramps and accessible parking too...

Not a fair comparison

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

#289

Post by loco5niner »

aldordeah wrote: post #140
morgante wrote: post #78

This is beyond ridiculous and will have a serious chilling effect on the growth of online learning content. That you should be obligated to spend additional money on captioning your free videos is incredibly unfair and also unjustifiable. Unfortunately, in many cases it will make the costs unsustainable so we'll see videos taken down entirely—thus, the deaf are selfishly insisting that if they can't have something no…

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.

Life isn't fair. You have access to a computer. Please explain to me how it is fair that you can view free online uncaptioned lectures, when someone in the jungles of the Philippines has never even seen a keyboard?

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

#290

Post by loco5niner »

aldordeah wrote: post #180
barrkel wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow the principle behind that logic, everybody should be blinded, deafened and crippled immediately after birth, reduced to the lowest common denominator, because otherwise they get an advantage because they weren't born blind, deafened, or crippled. If a free lecture provides benefit to someone, but forcing it to be captioned causes it not to be released, would you be happy with that outcome? It's the same…

The population of deaf people in the USA is comparable to the population of Asian Americans (ranging from about 1% to 4% by state in both cases). If an organization gave a leg up in life to everyone except Asian Americans (e.g. by covering some share of the education costs), would you be happy with that outcome? Now this really is the same principle.

No, it is not the same principle.
Post reply on HN