|
|
|
|
|
|
by mecha_ghidorah
1338 days ago
|
|
|
I definitely wouldn't describe myself as anti-accessibility: I think physical structures should be handicap accessible (with the caveat that I think private dwellings shouldn't be forced to be), I think government services should be built with accessibility in mind, etc. I do think the loss of previously recorded course videos (https://reason.com/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-o...) that had been free in order to prevent being sued is a net loss though, and I think there are most likely much better ways to incentivize accessibility than allowing people to sue "without harm". Perhaps the most important thing to point out is that if the videos are taken down the deaf will not be able to access them at all; which is worse than them only being able to access them by relying on someone to help them. Note that I do understand in certain circumstances inequitable access can have knock on effects such that nobody having access is better than creating an unfair playing field: for example in the case of these previously recorded lectures enrolled students would have an unfair playing field in that deaf students wouldn't have access to the same resources students with hearing would. I agree this is a problem as deaf students deserve a level playing field with their peers. However there are options other than removing the videos, such as requiring the university provide accessibility support services to actually enrolled students. Those support services could create captions based on student request. Additionally (though it would involve higher taxation) providing people with disabilities support they can access as a government service would also help a lot I think in terms of providing access without leading to existing good things being destroyed. There are a lot of things I do support doing to make sure the deaf can, as much as possible, access these sorts of materials so describing my position as "fuck the deaf" feels.... uncharitable. |
|
|
> I do think the loss of previously recorded course videos (https://reason.com/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-o...) that had been free in order to prevent being sued is a net loss though, and I think there are most likely much better ways to incentivize accessibility than allowing people to sue "without harm".
I agree completely. I feel compelled to point out that these accessibility laws would never have gained traction if we (speaking generally) had made things accessible in the first place, eh?
The thing that really bothers me about people being anti-accessibility (and there was a lot of strident strident BS in this thread) is the blindingly oblivious argument from "enlightened" self-interest, to wit: you (speaking generally) may well become deaf someday, or blind, or paralyzed or something. It happens, all the time. (And here I would add something about OXO and how making things easier for seniors makes them easier for everybody, etc... but the kettle is about to boil...) :)
In any event, let's remember the end goal: Michael Levin et. al. makes organ regeneration a reality and there are no more handicapped people. Everyone everywhere has everything in good working order. And we live for centuries too, eh?
- - - -
(I get off on irony. That last sentence of yours has me giggling. Cheers, well met.)