Of course, there would be some scope for efficiency - no need to pay for captioning when the performers aren't speaking!
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/problem-with-youtubes-terrible-c...
Correct interpretations of these nuances are applied by Youtube, Google however translates "you" by default to the most formal option.
So to me $1 dollar per minute sounds like an awesome deal because there is not much to adjust.
Out of curiosity, can you link to such a gig company?
The same with any voice control, It doesn't work with my west country accent.
The one mentioned in the article is https://www.rev.com/
As others say it’s not perfect but I have to believe it would be good enough and probably isn’t a bad idea in any case.
Pornhub should not be responsible for the lack of captions on videos uploaded by users.
Think about what the point is; the point is to give hearing-impaired people the same experience as hearing people. If you quizzed some people who only had the audio and others who only read the captions, both groups should be able to answer questions at the same rate of success (caption readers may get more questions right, like naming a speaker).
Some video captions could have numerous errors but of a type that the reader can easily tell what was meant. Other videos might have highly accurate captions but one essential word was missed, changing the whole meaning.
Correct
It should be responsible for those clips it chooses to make available as part of its business
If I were to build a new shopping centre, but decided not to put in wheelchair access, would you argue that everyone will suffer from not having access to the shops, and thus it's a lose-lose for everyone?
In this situation we are in fact saying that a large volume of user-submitted or professional porn should not be accessible because it might not be worth the money to transcribe. I don't think any stores are closing because a mall had to add wheelchair ramps. It's not like an inspiring technological undertaking.