In an effort to both help and ensure I am responding to the strongest form of an argument, and not just picking apart easy weaknesses, would you care to bolster

In an effort to both help and ensure I am responding to the strongest form of an argument, and not just picking apart easy weaknesses, would you care to bolster your claims that: - freely publishing course materials to the internet-at-large is the same thing as providing educational services for which the universities receive federal funding - services provided by institutions receiving money from the government includes all services provided--pending your clarification on how releasing information equates to a service provided--entirely, without exemption, and not just those services to which federal funds are directly allocated - applying federal compulsion to meet desired accessibility goals should apply to individuals who are not the official recipients of the benefits of the programs funded by the federal government (in this instance, meaning the general public of internet users who are non-students desiring to consume freely available information) I find this automatic set of claims/assumptions to be highly dubious, as it equates releasing information--even if organized by originating course, thus giving the appearance of being an "online course", but actually lacking any involvement or service from the university beyond releasing the material, and thus not really an "online course"--to providing education to enrolled students (for which the university receives funding and is inarguably subject to accessibility restrictions with associated penalties). I think these are, if one does not ignore the nuances of the circumstances, quite different things that weaken the argument for considering them to be services provided by the university. How do you enshrine this in a principle that applies to all actors? Does everything a university sponsors or engages in fall under these principles? Meaning, because they received federal funding for programs A, B, and C, do programs X, Y, and Z fall under federal purview and penalty, as well? Should the internet public really be granted the latitude to expect they can have their cake and eat it, too, where consuming course material for personal edification as a non-student is concerned? You can check my much lengthier thoughts elsewhere in the thread on this, if you'd like. Also, let's exclude your "They certainly have the means" comment. That, to me, diminishes the force of your argument for principles by concluding it as an argument that the alleged principles only matter because the affected party has the perceived means. I think that severely weakens the case for why this isn't just a grab to hold an entity to a higher standard because they have the money to pay for the burden.