This sort of commentary betrays a stiflingly first-order thought process.
Sure, being "more inclusive" is a benefit - this is included in any utilitarian or economic analysis of the change. However, instead of spending X marginal dollars being more inclusive to deaf people, you could also spend that money on any number of other outcomes (pick your pleasant-sounding cause: cancer research, homeless outreach, just making everyday people's lives a bit better).
If you don't understand how "monetary benefits" tie in to scalable social optimization, you should probably not offer opinions on which causes people (and companies) should put money into.
Also, keep in mind that you have ~zero skin in the game here, and Zoom has a lot, so you should lend a lot of credence to what they choose to do.
One day, you might be. Just be glad you won't be left behind.
Edit: If you want a purely numbers based analysis, well, you're not considering second-order effects. Investment in accessibility represents an investment in technology. ASR in meetings, for example, is a necessary first step towards good auto-translation.
This is the exact stupid response I mentioned earlier: “be glad you’re not disabled!” How about you get a real argument instead of just shaming people?
Sure, being "more inclusive" is a benefit - this is included in any utilitarian or economic analysis of the change. However, instead of spending X marginal dollars being more inclusive to deaf people, you could also spend that money on any number of other outcomes (pick your pleasant-sounding cause: cancer research, homeless outreach, just making everyday people's lives a bit better).
If you don't understand how "monetary benefits" tie in to scalable social optimization, you should probably not offer opinions on which causes people (and companies) should put money into.
Also, keep in mind that you have ~zero skin in the game here, and Zoom has a lot, so you should lend a lot of credence to what they choose to do.