[darawk]

The deaf are already at a measurable disadvantage. They're deaf. We should take steps to mitigate that. We should make their lives easier in whatever ways are practical. This is obviously not one of them.

We can't make being deaf the same as not being deaf. Disabled people will always be at some disadvantage to their abled counterparts. All we can do is make reasonable compromises. And it should be utterly obvious to everyone involved that this is not a reasonable compromise.

[lyqwyd]

It's unfortunate that this is the sort of means by which these issues are addressed, but it's more unfortunate that are society does not take action on issues like these until these sort of means are used.

It's horrible that these were taken down, but it's far more horrible that disadvantaged populations are ignored, and put at further disadvantage.

And ultimately the files are still available in a more egalitarian way than they were before. The outcome is arguably better than the way things were before!

[VarFarYonder]

> It's horrible that these were taken down, but it's far more horrible that disadvantaged populations are ignored, and put at further disadvantage.

What about blind people? Or people who cannot afford internet access? Or people who don't speak English?

If you take your reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, nobody can give anything away for free, because there will always be some minority that is put at a disadvantage.

[idiot_stick]

>The deaf are already at a measurable disadvantage. They're deaf. We should take steps to mitigate that.

Which is why we're not trying to cure their deafness. Instead, we're trying to ensure that the deaf have access to the same information those who aren't deaf have.

[darawk]

By taking information away from those who can hear.

[sbarre]

No, by passing laws that require institutions to provide their content in an accessible manner.

The law didn't force UCB to take the videos down, they chose to take them down rather than comply with the law.

Not the same thing..

[Sir_Substance]

>The law didn't force UCB to take the videos down

It totally did, it's an unreasonable cost, and thus a fake choice.

[darawk]

That doesn't change the fact that the outcome here is illogical. If you want to make things accessible, you need to penalize the institutions that don't make things accessible. Instead, we gave them the option to take it down. So the general public got penalized and UC Berkeley's incentives didn't change at all. Now they just won't make their lectures public.

[Myrmornis]

And indeed they already stopped making them public, in 2015. This latest thing is them being forced to remove public access to their historical collection.