> First of all, Berkeley didn't have to take down their courses. They elected to, then threw a tantrum about it. And yes, they could have spent money making their videos accessible, but let's not forget that they spent money to get those videos made in the first place

Sure they spent money to get those videos made in the first place. The point is that the cost of making accessible vieos is far, far higher than the cost of simply recording lectures and posting them. Berkeley judged the benefit was greater than the cost of the latter, but less than the cost of the former.

> OK, so as a blind person, I'm supposed to do what?

Do whatever you want. Just recognize there is a valid debate over how much your inconvenience obligates others to accomodate you. You're clearly advocating for a very heavy obligation, which is understandable given your profile. But the aggregate cost of these accomodations may indeed be greater than the aggregate benefit, and most people care more about making money than accomodating a few blind users. Sorry.

> Pay more than someone with their own car to take a Lyft or Uber?

Life isn't fair. Wheelchair-accessible vans are more expensive than "normal" vans: you have to pay more than able people, because the features you want/need cost more. Is this fair? Should we include a tax on all car sales to subsidize wheelchair-accessible cars for the disabled?

> So in the past few weeks I've been denied the ability to apply for jobs, purchase products, or even launch interesting side projects that might build my skills or improve my resume, all because web developers can't be bothered

Maybe those developers made a rational choice that learning how to make their site accessible costs far more than they expect to benefit from disabled users. Don't like it? Don't use their site. Have to use their site? Hire someone to be your eyes.

The question really is: who should bear the costs of making accessible sites? I know your answer. Many people simply disagree. Again: life isn't fair.

> I for one am sick and tired of fighting with people like you whose anti-regulation stance happily throws me under the bus, and I haven't even scratched the surface regarding the ways that an inaccessible web has and continues to hinder me.

It must be tough. Really. I'm glad you're fighting for your interests. It's just that those are your interests, and are not shared by the vast majority of the population. Your disability may indeed hinder you. Life isn't fair.

> [...] [I]f you aren't building in accessibility from day one or paying me to advise you on fixing it, then I'd basically be volunteering for a full-time job's worth of work pointing out the ways in which a given complex service isn't accessible

This sounds awfully entitled. Why would they pay you for accessibility features that will have only marginal benefit to their bottom line?

I think this ultimately boils down to a moral argument. Does the convenience of accessibility for some class of disabled people justify imposing a burden on creators? Does that added convenience outweigh the costs (economically-unfeasible projects being scrapped, a la Berkeley; reduced profits for proprietors, etc.)? You definitely have an interest in that answer being "yes"--but most people do not share your interest. Sucks, man. Life isn't fair.