Hacker News Reader

Comment by libeclipse | Hacker News Reader

What? So a lawsuit to allow more people access to knowledge resulted in no one having access to more of it.

Damn, that's just.. I'm struggling to refrain from saying a word that'd get me in trouble.

Yes, we live in a time where minorities tyrannize the rest.

Or at least lawyers purporting to represent minorities, who collect 30% of the payout while the minorities get a $20 gift card (or some similar token).

No. Minorities are still in worse situation than majority globally. And all so called "minority tyranny" is just a random malfunctioning of institutes usually directly involved in screwing minorities. E.g. some black woman successfully sued some white white male for racial/gender reasons and it was bad for common sense? That's because it was possible in the first place to do that, only previously it was done the other way.

PS: I'm not a minority.

> Minorities are still in worse situation than majority globally

The "group average" of a persons designated (prescribed?) demographic is irrelevant on the level of comparing individuals and their interactions.

> only previously it was done the other way.

Given it was different individuals, this is only true if you define groupings specifically to, say, match a racist white and a non-racist white, from different generations, simply because they are both white; Hence mistreatment of some innocent, random modern white can be interpreted as 'comeuppance'..

I'd pause to blame them, ultimately the law allows this stuff to happen.

The doctrine of Disparate Impact is way out of control.

> So a lawsuit to allow more people access to knowledge resulted in no one having access to more of it.

There is a merit in the lawsuit here. This is how discrimination starts. Over a reasonable period of time, the horse has left the barn and then will scramble over quick fix solutions to stem the rot.

You'd get symmetric situation if someone sues a biased employer who only hires gingers, and the guy decide to shut shop instead---don't you?

It would be symmetric if hiring gingers was cheaper, like making non-accessible videos.

Arbitrarily discriminating against gingers isn't the same as not doing extra work to make the videos more accessible.

Further more, the right to run a business, and participate in a particular economy, is regulated in many ways - these videos were given away for free to everyone, possibly at cost.

I don't think a free educational resource should have to meet this burden.

I'm not sure whether it makes a difference, but in my example the biased employer was arbitrarily discriminating in favour of gingers.

Yes, I was suggesting your example was different to the situation in the article, or not relevant in the same way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com