[StrangeATractor]

I'm going out on a limb, but I can't see a downside to making an "ADA for the web". Any for-profit company of a certain size or revenue has to have their content available in plaintext, including audio and videos being transcribed. Content should also be available without artificial restriction (like DRM), so you can use whatever software you like to process the text.

If everything is going digital, this will be necessary for visually impaired people to access critical information.

[BizarroLand]

The only thing I can think of as a negative is that it raises the bar for new players to join.

You already will have a very tough time hosting your own materials without using a major player as an intermediary. Emails in particular are far more likely to be blacklisted simply because they're not originating from a known approved source regardless of your DKIM, SPF, or DMARC settings. Adding that every new website has to be fully accessible to the visually impaired when on top of that there isn't a single collectively approved standard to measure yourself against would be an enormous hassle and stop a lot of new people from even being able to take a chance with starting a new website.

However, that is remediable with an approved standard to meet and clear guidelines on the processes that must be followed to meet them, so that's not as big of a deal as it can be made out to be.

[gunapologist99]

Also it's quite unfortunate that bots can easily use the same interfaces designed for screen readers, so just using a slightly-standardized REST API or plain-old HTML can expose you to bot attacks (ddos, spam, etc) once you reach a certain size.