Deaf man sues Pornhub over lack of closed captions in violation of the ADA

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?

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. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dredf.org&#x2F;2019&#x2F;11&#x2F;27&#x2F;landmark-settlement-with-harvard-to-improve-online-accessibility&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dredf.org&#x2F;2019&#x2F;11&#x2F;27&#x2F;landmark-settlement-with-harvar...</a>

Does anyone with more experience with this law know whether the ADA would apply to <i>all</i> video content on a website or just a subset?<p>Otherwise YouTube would also have a huge problem. Their auto-generated CC&#x27;s are laughable most of the time.

Some people do indeed watch it for the story.<p>The phonetic alphabet would probably be helpful here, given the &quot;text&quot; 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&#x27;re building a video site not intended for those with disabilities, how does that work?<p>Can you be forced to provide additional content outside of your systems intended use case?<p>We build sites to meet WCAG standards when doing Government work, but for other sites that are personal&#x2F;startup projects do these same rules apply and if so why do they apply?<p>As a somewhat contrived example, are Spotify required to provide captions&#x2F;lyrics with each song they stream?

From 4 days ago (40 points, 34 comments): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22077649" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22077649</a>

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&#x27;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&#x27;t know why generated subtitles wouldn&#x27;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.<p>Not to mention that this is actually mentioned in the article

Why only Pornhub. Many Videos on Prime don&#x27;t have captions. Why not just sue Amazon?

How will he ever know if the new tennant ever got the plumbing fixed !<p>This is just pure discrimination. :)

&quot;Oh oh oh oh ooooh&quot; just about covers it.

Curious: why isn&#x27;t all porn sites sued for this? I don&#x27;t quite get why they&#x27;re only going after PH? Is it because it&#x27;s harder to win a case against 1000 websites? Is it because it&#x27;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&#x27;s just transparently obvious that the plaintiff is right. Youtube is autogenerating CCs.