Update README.md

README.md

@@ -32,10 +32,14 @@ Some of this has impacted the internal politics of the W3C's AGWG, inflaming an
 **Legislatures should be aware that portions of WCAG 2 are not fit for use in law or regulation**; if it were a voluntary guideline, the potential for harm would not be such a concern, but when elevated to statute law, the potential for harm is unacceptable. The unfortunate part here is that the serious problems of WCAG 2's contrast SCs cast a dark shadow on some important aspects of WCAG 2.
 
 ### Don't be led astray, WCAG 2.x SCs 1.4.3 & 1.4.11 are not fit for purpose.
-These two SCs affect the vast majority of visual web content, yet neither is supported by science, nor peer review, nor testing. WCAG 2's contrast math/methods do not support actual accessibility, and in fact can result in conditions that are worse for those with color vision deficiencies. The understanding docs of WCAG 2.x contain false or misleading information, and the premise lacks scientific support. 1.4.3 and 1.4.11 should not be incorporated into any laws nor regulations. Thic could be said of a few other SCs, but these two in particular have resulted in the greatest misunderstandings, and the greatest harm to users.
+These two SCs affect the vast majority of visual web content, yet neither is supported by science, nor peer review, nor testing. WCAG 2's contrast math/methods do not support actual accessibility, and in fact can result in conditions that are worse for those with color vision deficiencies. The understanding docs of WCAG 2.x contain false or misleading information, and the premise lacks scientific support. 1.4.3 and 1.4.11 should not be incorporated into any laws nor regulations. This could be said of a few other SCs, but these two in particular have resulted in the greatest misunderstandings, and the greatest harm to users and readability.
 
 A critical view of the actions here and elsewhere, clearly reveal a motivation to obstruct, with a darker purpose. This can not be allowed to stand. Fixing the significant problems of web content readability is one we take seriously, as is evidenced by our continued development of free-to-use guidelines and technologies.
 
+Considering that the emergence of the World Wide Web as a content distribution system effectively replaced traditional print, the obligation for supporting effective readability of digital content should not be underestimated. Inadaquate or improper standards for visually readable content results in high visual fatigue, inaccessible content, and ultimately reduced reading for a majority of the population. By some measures, reading has decreased by as much as 40% over the last two decades. A seven word meme does not convey understanding the way a seven hundred or seven thousand word article can. Projecting forward, the societal consequence is dystopian at best. A public that does not read is a public shrouded in ignorance, leading to a public ripe for manipulation—as history has shown us all too often.
+
+Consider this when you ask why certain individuals are opposed to improving visual accessibility and readability of digital content. 
+
 Thank you for reading.
 
 ## Resources