The point I was trying to make is that if a centralized agency like the Library of Congress were given the tools to provide access to acceptable standards, then that should eliminate any accessibility hassles for individual content providers.
I am not a technical expert, but, for what it is worth--
As a compromise, instead of requiring tens of millions of content providers each to reinvent the wheel on accessibility (or to degrade or suppress their offerings entirely)--
How about setting up (perhaps under the Library of Congress) an on-line portal for disabled users to access the best-practice accessible-ized version of any address on the internet, eg a video with captions automatically applied? Instead of spending money on lawfare and painfully expensive individual conversions, spend it to bring the World's best technical talent to one project-- automation of conversion to meet the needs of different disabilities.
As an example, automated subtitling is not yet ready, but putting highest priority on it is more likely to make more videos accessible to the deaf in a shorter amount of time, without antagonizing the general community.
No sensible cop (or lawful civilian carrier) would accept a gun dependent on an external electronic signal: it could be jammed by hackers, whether working for terrorists, gangsters or individual criminals. Look up "electronic warfare," an important branch of military art dating back at least to WW2.
Congress could invoke its civil rights power under the Fourteenth Amendment to overrule police union contracts, State laws, and local laws that hamper investigations of possible police misconduct and removal of untrustworthy officers. But that would raise opposition from police unions that neither Congress nor the White House probably wish to face.
I suppose if every Congressman has a "liberum veto" over artwork in common areas, the only acceptable subjects will be the Flag, eagles, national parks (empty of people), and kittens (but no eagles flying off with kittens, please!).
I am glad the FBI has been looking for jihadists before they strike, but am troubled by the betrayal of the father's confidence here. It would be both honorable and sensible (in terms of cultivating family informants in future cases) for the government, in consultation with the family and other decent members of their community, to put this young man on a special clemency track, rather than throwing away the key.
One complaint, though minor compared to other instant systems:
Sometimes officials are tempted to alter OCR cards so that the machine can read what it looks like the voter intended. It would be safer if such cards were left unchanged, for tabulation only in the official hand recount. Any markings made on them by officials should be in a different-colored ink from the voter's.
Under the Stalin constitution (free-est in the World), polling stations had booths where malcontents could cross out the Party slate on the ballot. Normal workers and peasants, however, were proud to show their ballots as an affirmation of community solidarity.
I share the general opposition to a "right to be forgotten" that would mainly benefit swindlers, stalkers, and dishonest politicians. As a compromise: how about a "right of reply" page which would show up at the top of a subject's link listing? This would be the subject's chance to address unfavorable links, eg (1) the link is false; (2) The link is ancient history; (3) the party who put up the link is a sociopath, with links to prove it (something that would be impossible if the sociopath had a "right to be forgotten"); etc
It would be fun to see a hoax lawsuit supposedly from McDonalds demanding that conservative Mormon Presidential candidate McMullin change his name, because confusion could depreciate the brand of one of their breakfast offerings.
Chavista Venezuela pioneered reliable E-voting technology in the 20-noughts. Now Argentina's right-leaning government is picking up the idea and improving on it. In an era of so much negativity and ideology-based obstructionism, it is heartwarming to see such cooperation "across the aisle": one man, one vote, one time only.