Slashdot Mirror


Coursera Commits 'Cultural Vandalism' As Old Platform Shuts (i-programmer.info)

Reader mikejuk writes: Coursera has announced that 30 June is the date when it will shut down the servers hosting courses that were the first, free, offerings on its platform. The new model isn't just a revised interface, it is also a new monetization model, and presumably the decision to throw out all the original free content, by shutting the platform, is motivated by greedy commercialism. You could say that the golden age of the MOOC (a course of study made available over the Internet without charge to a very large number of people) is over with the early enthusiastic pioneers doing it because they were passionate about their subject and teaching it being replaced by a bunch of "lets teach a course because it's good for my career and ego" with subjects being selected by what will sell.
Closing down the old platform is an unnecessary destruction of irreplaceable content. Coursera needs to rethink this policy that goes against everything it originally stood for. The courses affected are from the early days of the MOOC that are likely to be important in the history of their subject. The most relevant for us, but far from the only one, is Geoffrey Hinton's Neural Networks for Machine Learning which gave a "deep" insight into the way he thinks and how neural networks work.
Something has to be done to preserve this important record -- they don't have to turn off the servers just because they have a new platform.
Dhawal Shah, founder of Class Central has written about ways one can download Coursera's courses before they're gone.

24 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Cultral Vandalism? by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, some people are pissed off that someone that was free now costs money. How is this cultural vandalism? What the fuck is cultural vandalism anyways? Did someone graffiti some ethnic restaurants?

    1. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I stated in this post, people feel they are entitled to something someone else produced. It doesn't matter that the person or company has taken the time and effort to produce something other people want, everyone else demands it as an inherent right to have it instantly completely ignoring the fact they haven't lifted a finger to produce the product.

      As I have always said, if people believe things should be free they can produce what they want and give it away. They shouldn't expect everyone else to do the same.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet the same idiots who write about cultural vandalism would be equally pissed about people reading their articles with ad block. It seems that the people who constantly demand that everyone else produce something free of charge are very unlikely to provide something of the same cost themselves.

      If they're so enthusiastic about free courses, they can pay for the servers and bandwidth costs.

    3. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe that was the point.
      People created content for Coursera with the intention of giving it away for free. Coursera appropriated that content and is denying access to it so that it can sell it's other paid content.
      So, it's not a question of "people wanting something for free" but "people being denied access to something they were given".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      Worse, some people are pissed off that someone else isn't continuing keep servers running at their expense to keep giving stuff away.

      It's not "vandalism" to stop offering a service. It might be akin to vandalism to damage someone ELSE offering a service, but that's not happening here. Someone's just feeling entitled and whining.

    5. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Coursera appropriated that content and is denying access to it

      Hogwash. Coursera didn't "appropriate" anything. They just made it available, for free. Then they stopped. Most of this content was, and is, available through other channels. TFA mentions Geoffrey Hinton's Neural Net course. I have taken that course, and I didn't even know that Coursera offered it: I watched it on Youtube (great course, btw).

      Is there even a single course that will no longer be available elsewhere? If the original creator failed to keep a backup, that is not Coursera's fault.

    6. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They induced people to donate it by representing that they would make it available.

      You want to create a course for people to see. Somebody offers to host it if you create it. You put in your effort. How do you feel when they don't hold up their end? Especially if you don't happen to notice until the only copy is no longer available to you?

    7. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coursera appropriated that content and is denying access to it

      Hogwash. Coursera didn't "appropriate" anything. They just made it available, for free. Then they stopped.

      Agreed. No company or internet service who hosted something for FREE has an obligation to keep hosting said content for FREE forever. They're not "denying access" to content; they're just not going to host it anymore.

      If the original creator failed to keep a backup, that is not Coursera's fault.

      It surprises me that people haven't figured this out about the internet yet. I realized it 20 years ago.

      Two rules that constitute the grand oxymoron of internet content durability:

      (1) Once you put something on the internet, it may be on the internet FOREVER. (Corollary: Be careful what you post; it could follow you for the rest of your life.)

      (2) Anything that's on the internet could disappear FOREVER at any time. (Corollary: If you actually want to preserve something, you need to download it and be responsible for preserving it yourself.)

      Unfortunately, many people haven't caught on to this. A century from now historians will be looking back in puzzlement at the "Dark Decades" between the end of paper records and the beginning of more permanent digital archives, where huge amounts of electronic content was created but then lost forever. Meanwhile, I'm sure most of the meaningless Tweets and Facebook posts of drunken party photos will still be around for historians to assess....

    8. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I didn't go through the time and expense of getting a master's degree to work for nothing.

      I did. I didn't plan to.

      I really thought underwater sociology was going to be the hot new thing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Summary is a bit over the top by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's their platform. If they want to change it up, start charging or whatever, that's their right. People sure do whine a lot in 2016.

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    1. Re:Summary is a bit over the top by epseps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding. Taliban blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas = Cultural Vandalism. ISIS in Palmyra = Cultural Vandalism. Company charging for services rendered so they do not go out of business = I dunno, a better business model than their older one? Its not cultural vandalism though.

  3. Nothing is destroyed. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't claim that someone is committing cultural vandalism and in the same breath provide instructions on how to preserve something. Just because someone created something or provided a host platform in the first place doesn't obligate them to preserve that platform at that price for eternity.

    It's free. Download it. If you want to preserve it then do so, but don't have a whinge when someone else doesn't want to.

  4. Vacant lot analogy by DidgetMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like the neighborhood vacant lot when I was a kid. The owner back then didn't seem to mind that we set up a great bicycle racetrack on it with jumps everywhere. We also built a treehouse in one of its trees. Then one day the owner decided to build a house on it. The construction equipment came in and started digging up our racetrack. We all complained and whined to our parents who told us that the property owner could build a house on his property if he wanted. We were not paying for anything and had no rights at all with respect to the property.

    1. Re:Vacant lot analogy by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Obviously you neglected to play the "cultural vandalism" card back then.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Vacant lot analogy by epseps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you are correct.

      Also it seems a lot of other websites focusing on online courses used the coursera APIs, https://building.coursera.org/... , including https://www.class-central.com/ .

      So it is more than just playing in the vacant lot, I think some sites were making some cash from their online courses via the API and now their business model is getting flushed.

    3. Re:Vacant lot analogy by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I think some sites were making some cash from their online courses via the API and now their business model is getting flushed.

      Good business model, relying on something free that someone else is providing without any contract for continuation or preservation ... not. Sorry their own fault. If you build a business on something you need to put the effort into protecting your primary resources.

  5. Hellish demons walk the Earth by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The new model isn't just a revised interface, it is also a new monetization model, and presumably the decision to throw out all the original free content, by shutting the platform, is motivated by greedy commercialism.

    You fucking stooge! Slashdot should be ashamed of itself for taking part in this false flag operation. Clearly the decision to monetize content is motivated by Satanic vampirism! Death to these unholy monsters and anyone who supports them!

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  6. Re:they want the student loan cash cow by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Business is way more complex than that. Human group behavior often appears as something simple, especially when it isn't. In business, this often produces an effect whereby everyone in a business has honest, benevolent intentions, and manages to build a shambling, evil empire; actual malicious intent and selfish greed are rare events, but common outcomes.

    Coursera has, for a long time, been molding itself into a corporate service platform. In reorganization, aligning the business with its strategic goals would rightly include removing out-of-scope practices such as providing open, free online courses. The major failure in that model is in evaluating those practices in the context of their *impact* on the business, rather than on the business strategy: not thinking about how the world interacts with you or how your actions will be seen by the world leads to taking actions that upset the population.

    There's a lot of middle-class radicalization and social justice warrior stuff going on in this summary. There's even a direct attack on colleges and professors ("Let's teach a course because it's good for my ego"--teachers are all selfish assholes, right?), as if the entire practice of teaching is a pox on society, while the practice of learning is something cherished and valuable.

  7. Free content by corporate+zombie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Being in the middle of taking a Coursera course right now I can state that the content is still free if you audit the course. Auditing a course gives you access to the lectures, coursework, and the forums. You cannot submit coursework for a grade, nor receive a final grade and certificate (if you pass) unless you have paid for the course.

    Having taken several of the original free courses I was concerned at first but once I read through all the fine print I think it's a fine way to monetize the system. Free for those that want information and a charge for those that want proof of having taken the course.

  8. Re:they want the student loan cash cow by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a lot of middle-class radicalization and social justice warrior stuff going on in this summary.

    Indeed. Coursera is a for-profit company, so no one should be surprised that they engage in "greedy commercialism". That is what enables them to grow as a business and pay people salaries. They are not a charity, and should not be expected to behave as one. MOOCs are far from dead, and much of this same content can be accessed on Youtube, along with hundreds of other courses.

    Disclaimer: I have competed several MOOCs, mostly free courses from MIT. I have never taken a course from Coursera.

  9. Re:they want the student loan cash cow by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Human group behavior often appears as something simple, especially when it isn't. In business, this often produces an effect whereby everyone in a business has honest, benevolent intentions, and manages to build a shambling, evil empire; actual malicious intent and selfish greed are rare events, but common outcomes.

    You make it sound as if this is somehow a feature of big, complex organizations. But good intentions frequently yield disastrous outcomes even at the individual level. Ultimately, it isn't people's intentions that matter, it's actual outcomes.

    As for Coursera, their "good intentions" may simply be running into financial reality: the MOOC space is crowded, there is a lot of good free content, and big name universities are not necessarily at an advantage here. Good intentions don't come to fruition if the people with the good intentions can't figure out how to pay for them.

  10. Stuff costs money by itamblyn · · Score: 2

    I'm going to go out on limb here and suggest that it might have less to do with greed and more to do with the fact that infrastructure and people cost money. As much as I would like it if everything in life were free, it isn't, which means that the people that build and maintain their infrastructure need a salary (not to mention what I imagine are non-trivial hosting costs), and that money has to come from somewhere.

  11. Why Blame Coursera and Not the Content Creators?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As someone who works at an educational institution that creates MOOCs on Coursera, I can tell you that any courses that disappear after June 30th will have done so because the CONTENT CREATOR (the universities, professors, etc.) decided to not migrate them to the new platform. The migration is not a terribly difficult chore, so you can blame the content creators for deciding to not migrate... and maybe they did so because THEY, not Coursera, were tired of giving content away for free.

    And anybody who thinks this is the end of free MOOCs hasn't clicked the "Enroll" button for any courses on the new platform. I just went to a random one and am presented with "Purchase Course - $49; Commit to earning a Certificate-it's a trusted, shareable way to showcase your new skills." OR "Full Course, No Certificate; You will still have access to all course materials for this course."

    Different: Yes. No Longer Free: No.

  12. Another "cloud" lesson by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    You cannot trust an entity to keep your data online for (what appears to be) free interminably. In the US, the web is not a public resource (tax supported, then free downstream for all.) It is a commercial resource, where presence requires upstream expenditure.

    That means someone, or someone(s), somewhere, has to support the model with actual money. When the reasons to support that model go away -- and there are many ways that can happen -- so will the data.

    You want your data to remain available? Keep a copy of it yourself and make it available. This, if nothing else, gives you control over whether it it available, or not. You can, of course, put it up somewhere like Coursera or GitHub or YouTube or Wikipedia or one of these so-called "cloud" services if you are so inclined, but rest assured, these large entities are burning through money at a fairly good clip, and that means all data (and service) you offer in such a way depends on that for-money model at one level or another.

    The thing is, it's their for-money model, not yours. So your control is almost always nil. When you, on the other hand, set up a cheap little website to offer your "stuff", then the expenditure is yours, and so is the control. That's the basis for a good relationship between you, and the people you want to be able to access your data.

    You have a network connection. If you have unlimited data (and if not, why not?) ask your ISP for a static IP, set up an easy to use LAMP stack, and have at it. If you do have limited data... first, try to change ISPs, because really... that's terrible. If that doesn't work, there are all manner of services out there where you can set up shop on the cheap, and if they go away, you can just move.

    And... if you're not motivated enough to do that... well, there you go. Nowhere, that is.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.