Deaf man sues Pornhub over lack of closed captions in violation of the ADA

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 1:29 PM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #58

ghaff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, even human transcribers have their limits. I often get transcripts of my podcasts. But if I have someone with a strong accent, I’ll often skip because I know I’ll be charged for a difficult transcription especially around technical terms and I’ll still have to do a lot of cleanup. Surely the ADA requirement isn’t for a near perfect transcript. That actually makes me wonder re podcasts and other audio. Is there a…

> Surely the ADA requirement isn’t for a near perfect transcript. The law requires "reasonable accommodations" to provide a equivalent experience. Expecting perfection would not be reasonable. Also with heavy accents, the hearing audience probably doesn't understand every word so if some words in the transcript were wrong, the hearing impaired have the same experience. There's nothing special about video, the law can…

Post by michaelt » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

lowdose wrote: post #40

michaelt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the performance of Google's auto-captioning, I suspect developing worthwhile auto-captioning is pretty difficult; according to [1] the better Youtube channels use gig economy captioning at $1 per minute. Of course, there would be some scope for efficiency - no need to pay for captioning when the performers aren't speaking! [1] https://www.wired.com/story/problem-with-youtubes-terrible-c...

While Youtube auto captioning has a superior performance compared to Google Translate output. In youtube translations there is much more language specific nuance. In many European languages a more formal word for the English word "you" exists, in German it is "Sie", French "Vous". Correct interpretations of these nuances are applied by Youtube, Google however translates "you" by default to the most formal option. So…

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

jeroenhd wrote: post #46

jascii wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precedent: a conviction against one will encourage the others to do the right thing while avoiding the cost of having 1000's of defendants.

If "doing the right thing" means banning videos from all online platforms except those with the capability to automatically translate sound into subtitles, I'd rather they don't do the "right thing". The end result will be lawsuit money for a few disabled people and the end of most alternative video platforms.

Post by drewbug01 » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #36

chrxr wrote: post #29

Relevant precedent: Harvard recently settled with National Association of the Deaf, resulting in all videos made publically available after Dec 2019 requiring captions, and a required 5 day turnaround for captioning of older videos. https://dredf.org/2019/11/27/landmark-settlement-with-harvar...

That sounds positive. In contrast, a similar situation at Berkeley had a disastrous outcome -- all Berkeley's historical non-captioned videos of lectures were taken down.

Post by threatofrain » Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

iso1210 wrote: post #47

logicchains wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the similarity. If we go from blind people suffering from not having access to the audio transcription, to everybody suffering from not having access to either the audio or video (because all the videos were taken down), isn't that a lose-lose for everybody? In worker protection at least the workers win from having more safety.

That's the whole point of disability legislation across the world, including the ADA If I were to build a new shopping centre, but decided not to put in wheelchair access, would you argue that everyone will suffer from not having access to the shops, and thus it's a lose-lose for everyone?