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...
Does anyone with more experience with this law know whether the ADA would apply to all video content on a website or just a subset?
Otherwise YouTube would also have a huge problem. Their auto-generated CC's are laughable most of the time.
Some people do indeed watch it for the story.
The phonetic alphabet would probably be helpful here, given the "text" material. Quite a challenge. But since this is for pornography, I do not doubt it will exist in a short amount of time.
Honest question here If you are building a system that is focused on a specific audience, i.e you're building a video site not intended for those with disabilities, how does that work?
Can you be forced to provide additional content outside of your systems intended use case?
We build sites to meet WCAG standards when doing Government work, but for other sites that are personal/startup projects do these same rules apply and if so why do they apply?
As a somewhat contrived example, are Spotify required to provide captions/lyrics with each song they stream?
From 4 days ago (40 points, 34 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22077649
This is funny (who cares about what do they speak in porn, really? I know some people learn German just to understand that but that's hardly essential for the experience) but there have been more alike case which were sad: universities removing (!) freely-available lecture videos as there were no subtitles (even those published on YouTube, I don't know why generated subtitles wouldn't qualify).
Porn videos are best left un-captioned. The court should advise the plaintiff to use his imagination.
You mean people actually watch porn with the sound turned on? (pardon the pun)
Now, this would be a very high bias, low variance ML problem to tackle :-)
There is a closed caption category in pornhub. Well, at least, that is what I have been told.
Not to mention that this is actually mentioned in the article
Why only Pornhub. Many Videos on Prime don't have captions. Why not just sue Amazon?
How will he ever know if the new tennant ever got the plumbing fixed !
This is just pure discrimination. :)
"Oh oh oh oh ooooh" just about covers it.
Curious: why isn't all porn sites sued for this? I don't quite get why they're only going after PH? Is it because it's harder to win a case against 1000 websites? Is it because it's more overhead to go after multiple sites and they expect the biggest return on investment only going after the biggest one? Anyone smarter than me who has a take?
I think it's just transparently obvious that the plaintiff is right. Youtube is autogenerating CCs.
If a company doesn't have the kind of technology to effectively transcribe their large volume of videos and the daily rate of uploads, then must they simply start taking down videos? If a company started hiring inhouse to develop such tech, how long would it take?