Hacker News Reader

Comment by alxp | Hacker News Reader

This article is libertarian bullshit.

"The market" doesn't solve problems that aren't profitable. Apple have been stellar at creating accessible devices and software for a long time and it's wonderful that they include these features for free. Screen reader software for Windows costs a fortune, and while it is more full-featured it's often overkill for someone who isn't totally blind but just has trouble seeing a normal high-resolution screen.

Amazon and Google (with Android) and other tech newcomers are not going to think about accessibility unless there is a stronger force than "the market" pushing them to.

So, if it means adding accessibility features is a necessary condition to being awarded an education contract, I'm all for it.

View on HN

I'll buy that, if you'll also agree that this ruling is liberal bullshit. Even if it conforms to the letter of the law, it is definitely not the intent of the law.

Please note I'm not asking anyone to be less liberal or care less about the ADA; I'm simply observing this is a violation of the intent of the law and of common sense. The fault here is the government's, I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general.

This sort of thing is actually dangerous; it generates anti-ADA sentiment in the public at large. Which would be unfortunate, as the ADA is broadly a good idea. (There are corners I can quibble about, but that's because I'm the contentious sort. It's mostly good.)

Also, even as a little-l libertarian, I would observe that much of the reason the market was "solving" this before the government clumsily stepped in is that the market was well aware that this requirement was coming as a result of the already-existing ADA law. They probably just thought that maybe the government would let them run a test project before they tried to put it into production, at which point they would dot their is and cross their ts, something I find a rather reasonable assumption. Markets are very, very good at serving the majority, and they are very, very good at serving niches with resources proportional to the size of the niche, but if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it.

> if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it.

That doesn't tell us who should pay the costs.

If "the people" think that something is a good idea, "the people" should pay for it.

"The people" are paying for it. I am not deluded into thinking the ADA is free. They pay in generally raised prices, somewhat slower economic development, and the projects that are never born because they couldn't comply with the ADA, which this project nearly fell under.

It is not anti-little-l-libertarian for a people to democratically agree to pay a little extra via governmental means to accomplish something the market isn't good at. It is anti-capital-L-Libertarian, but I'm not claiming that's what I am.

The real problem is not that our society thinks the ADA is a good idea, the real problem is that for things that like we allow ourselves to be systematically deceived that the cost of the ADA is zero, and we don't have to think about the costs and benefits. This is a pervasive problem; neither liberalism nor conservatism includes explicit concepts of analyzing things for costs and benefits, which is why I consider neither philosophy directly applied actually suitable for ruling us. It's a very good idea to have underlying principles for your governing philosophy but they must always be filtered through a worldview that acknowledges our finiteness.

(Also, I am a little-l-libertarian, so when I said I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general, it is not because I was not a wee bit tempted. It was because it wouldn't be fair or true.)

> "The people" are paying for it.

My claim is that they don't see that they're paying for it and they should. This isn't ADA-specific.

The word "market" appears in the article exactly 3 times. Although it is clear the author is making at least one argument that market forces are more efficient than government regulation, it is hardly the only point of the piece.

During the first half of the article, for example, he notes that the Kindle programs did not violate the ADA because they did not force any student to use a Kindle, and allowed them access to alternative materials, including (presumably) more accessible media.

I'd hardly call that "libertarian bullshit". (Indeed, I suspect the author would be less offended by your characterization of his writing as "bullshit" so much as he would "libertarian": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_York)

My chief problem with the article has less to do with York's premise (which seems to be that this was an example of horrifically inane government overreach) and more with York's overt sensationalism-- he himself points out that Amazon has already produced a fully-accessible Kindle-- why then the breathless article? Isn't the overt stupidity of the CRD fairly moot at this point?

Moreover, who wants to read a textbook on a Kindle?

Amazon and Google (with Android) and other tech newcomers are not going to think about accessibility unless there is a stronger force than "the market" pushing them to.

You are overly cynical. There is a group of developers sitting just a few feet from me whose whole job is making Google's products more accessible.

That said there are a lot of people at Google doing a lot of different things, and most don't think about accessibility until they have to. But, as a company, Google seems to take it seriously. And there is enough idealism built in to the culture that I don't think we need external people telling us we need to do it.

"and most don't think about accessibility until they have to"

If the ADA didn't exist, when would they "have to"?

If you want to claim "disband the ADA", then ok, that's consistent, but if they don't exist, it is just plain not profitable to include facilities for the disabled, most of the time. Too small a group for too big an expense.

If the ADA didn't exist, when would they "have to"?

Right after the accessibility group comes through and points out how they are inaccessible, and how many potential users are impacted by that. Accessibility has a lot of internal support, and not mainly for legal reasons.

Who wouldn't be there if government market distortions didn't make it profitable or otherwise culturally unfit. If a corporation is a machine that purely maximizes income, disabled people are a tiny niche market for boutique shops.

You are wrong to think that every large corporation is just a machine that purely maximizes income. That is very, very far from being an accurate description of Google. Over time Google may lose its current idealism. But as long as the founders have influence, I have faith that there will be an idealistic streak to the company.

Secondly you underestimate Google's willingness to go after relative niche markets. For instance as of 2007, Google search was available in over 100 languages. (See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/internationalizatio... for verification.) Google translate serves over 50 different languages. (Go to http://translate.google.com/ and count them.) Many other Google products have been translated into dozens of languages. Lots of those have very few people.

In the mid-90s 1.3 million people in the USA were legally blind. That's larger than the number of speakers of languages like Basque or Estonian. Furthermore people who speak such niche languages usually speak other languages as well. If you've put the work in to internationalize your application and go after those kinds of niches, why not go after blind people as well?

Actually, legally, theoretically and practically speaking, a corporation is and should be a machine to maximize income.

Whoever downmodded me is a fucking jackass. That's the definition. Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value as obligations #1, 2 and 3.

There is no reason that Google should behave any differently than Exxon Mobil or Phillip Morris or whatever corporation you want to call "less moral than google". Basing public policy on the expectation that corporations will be moral is the dumbest thing possible -- it's actually in their charter to be immoral.

Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value

People regurgitate this all the time, but there is no such "law."

Did you read the article?

"[L]ast week [Amazon] announced a new generation of Kindles that are fully accessible to the blind. While the Justice Department was making demands, and Perez was making speeches, the market was working."

So, if it means adding accessibility features is a necessary condition to being awarded an education contract, I'm all for it.

Agree 100%. My sister served for several years as the Disabilities Coordinator for Georgetown Law, and changed my viewpoint on the matter. I used to be of the 'let the market decide' school of thought, but I've come around. If public money is being spent, it can't be exclusive.

There's already a fair amount of regulation in place to ensure universal access. For instance, if you want to sell textbooks to most any university, you're required to provide a digital edition to any student who requests it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com