I'm jaded because I know there is a cottage industry of attorneys who go around suing for ADA violations. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some special interest group that goes around claiming automated captions aren't good enough and using them violates their client's civil rights.
Isn’t that literally the enforcement model of the ADA? It isn’t a special interest group so much as attorneys engaging with the system as it was designed, right?
The challenge is that these attorneys aren't acting in good faith, they're doing it for profit. Although they purport to advocate for the rights of the disabled, their business model is to find violations, however small, file a suit, and then offer to settle for several thousand dollars. Most of these lawsuits happen without an actual disabled person (who isn't the attorney) raising a complaint in the first place.
There was a semi-famous example of an attorney suing Chipotle because the counter was too high and he claimed that he was being denied the full Chipotle experience of seeing the food be prepared in front of him. The workaround of literally bringing the food to him tableside and preparing it in front of him there was not deemed good enough, and Chipotle lost the suit. As you can imagine this attorney makes quite a bit of money going around suing people, for reasons the average person would not find genuine.
"Chipotle argued that its accommodation was adequate and told the Supreme Court that Antoninetti lacked standing to sue. The company cited a federal judge's findings in 2008 that Antoninetti had sued numerous businesses over disability access and had not shown that he was sincere about intending to return to the restaurants if they lowered their barriers."
https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Chipotle-loses-disable...
I've been putting my podcast voice recordings into Whisper and it produces 99.8% usable subtitles from the language recognition perspective, and maybe 95% usable from timings perspective... So yeah, it's been really good...
