Bad move as some channels love that their content gets translations into other languages as helps them and they can't afford to pay for that and it's fans/supporters/people learning that create that. That's all going to go.
What they should and hopefully will still do is - allow it to happen still, but give control to the content creator to authorise it and only authorised is public. That way you get the best of it all. Then you would have a way to acknowledge any abuse/spam and get on that instead of liberally tarnishing all community captioners as spammy evil people who should be stopped as that is how they are doing it. Playing the, we're doing this as bad things happen focus and utterly and completely ignoring every positive good aspect of this. A pattern many a company/government uses and still don't make it right. This approach is what I call "Think of the children 2.0", same thing in effect, just more meanutiatered and subtle approach and yet still heavy on the blinkers.
It looks like it will still be possible, but only through a paid third-party service.
I suppose Google thinks auto-captions are enough to satisfy the ADA. We'll see.
Heh - so much for diversity and support of minority communities despite all of Google's virtue signaling around how much they value and support them.
I remember reading some Ivy put up a bunch of course material for free and was sued under the ADA so they took it down. This article made me think of that. To what extent are YouTube or content creators responsible for producing accessible material?
Youtube seems to be being run by idiots? All their decisions I have been seeing over the last ~year all appear to me to be idiotic. But I dont know their business - anyone care to elucidate?
Ongoing discussion here since last night: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24004573