[bionsuba]

I would ask those downvoting this comment to provide a counter argument.

This is absolutely ridiculous. A university was providing something, for free, to everyone who wanted it. And because someone complained that their personal circumstances made it impossible to enjoy this free thing, now no one is allowed to get this content.

It's as if I threatened to sue Costco because one of their free samples had nuts in it and I couldn't eat it, resulting in them canceling the program.

[danso]

But these videos are not "free". The content was created by university employees and hence, public funds. It's likely university resources were used to produce and edit it for online consumption.

I imagine the reasoning is that if you allow the university to deprioritize the needs of the disabled on the basis of "Well, something is better than nothing", then it incentivizes the production of such content because of the lower costs, and results in more disenfranchisement of the disabled.

I have to object to your reducing the situation to "because someone complained that their personal circumstances", as if it were just one person who is potentially disenfranchised by the situation. Just because one person's name is on a legal complaint doesn't mean that the law impacts that one and only person.

[_vertigo]

The world is demonstrably worse off as a result of this lawsuit. Valuable knowledge that was freely available to many is now available to very few.

The disenfranchisement of the disabled is a problem, but if the logical (for Berkeley) solution to this problem is the disenfranchisement of all, perhaps we shouldn't go through with "solving" this problem. Perhaps it is better to accept that some amount of unfairness is inevitable, and that it's preferable to have these videos publicly available than to not.

[danso]

It's not just about this point in time, but to increase the priority of creating accessible resources. Everyone generally believes "disenfranchisement of the disabled is a problem", it took a law to make society at least realize those costs. Building handicapped ramps and accessible bathrooms is a massive upfront cost for businesses and institutions, funds which come from the same pocket for services and benefits intended for the non-handicapped.

[namlem]

The law itself is poorly written, but the intent makes sense. It's important to protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable, which certainly includes deaf and blind people.