I am here, so obviously the blind can navigate the web. I watch movies on netflix, and love their audio described section. Better check out federal law relating to the national library service since they provide books and magazines in “specialized formats” for the blind and physically handicapped. From what I have “seen” on netflix, they even offer some titles that should be usable by deaf individuals.
As for “allegedly inaccessible”, there are tools which determine if a web site complies with wcag 2.0 a and aa. Since that is designated by the NGO that also establishes the html standards, they should have some idea what they are talking about? As for that university, don’t they accept federal funds?

Could not “reply” so this is for mx. Last year or so a huge archive of academic videos was taken down because the lectures were not ADA compliant. The link mx provides documents harsh penalties for small business websites that are not ADA compliant–yet proving compliance is not so simple.

The existence of screen readers is great and is an example of letting the market fix a problem rather than draconian penalties.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but given that the various Browsers out in the wild (Chrome, Firefox, IE, Edge, Safari, Opera) can’t render the same web page in the same way, I’m wondering how it is that the web page’s authors are by default more responsible than the third party app which purports to render the website usable by someone in need of that assistive device?

Yes, I’ve seen really incredibly poorly written web pages – those may be easy answers. I’ve seen web pages written 5 or 6 different ways, version shown dependent on the browser of the viewer (a not insignificant expense to write and periodically update) – do they get safe harbor? Do we demand that websites avoid use of certain features which make use easier for sighted persons with good hand eye control, because they don’t work well (if at all) for those whose eyesight or motor control might be significantly impaired, effectively “freezing” that method of using the internet? or take CA’s approach and impose strict liability on the maker of the assistive software the way they do for prosthetics, such that the maker (or perhaps the seller) becomes liable if the software doesn’t work or is not suited to the specific needs of the user?

I see lots of trade offs and suspect, given what I’ve seen in other technologies with significant third party intermediaries, that the Courts are the absolute worst place to make those policy decisions, and agency “guidance” in mounds of vaguespeak aren’t much better.

I don’t see any good answers, or any easy answers here. Don’t envy the Supreme Court this one. On the one hand, it may be best that they declare the ADA inapplicable, and leave it up to the market to decide. But that invites the possibility that the ignorant in Congress will make a further mess of things.

“How can a blind person navigate web pages?” With a screen reader.

“How can they view videos (e.g., of lectures or cats)” By listening to the audio (and using described videos where available)

“Note that movie theaters are NOT required to have subtitles on their films (which would ruin the experience for most people). ” But they do offer captioning devices, captioning apps, Rear Window, etc… and are required to do so by law where it’s not an undue burden.

These really are solvable problems. Not every problem for not every use-case is, no, and there are a lot of edge cases that are hard to attach definitive rules to, but it’s weird that you’re baffled at the idea that blind people could use the internet when large numbers of people do every day.