Yup, these kinds of things are definitely on the agenda as we integrate the core ideas here into Hazel. We kept things minimal in Tylr to focus on the core ideas with minimal "magic".
Indeed, that problem (ambiguity about where to put matching delimiters) is what motivated tylr. The solution is: when the location of the closing parentheses isn't unique, as in your example, tylr puts it in the "backpack" above the cursor and enters "restructuring mode", letting you select where it should go (within the valid region).
Certainly a relevant comparison, but if sexual orientation is, like race and gender, a protected characteristic, then it may make sense from a balancing perspective to not allow that to be a valid reason, even if "affiliation with a terrorist group" remains a valid reason to choose to deny service.
The dominant cost here isn't the cost of the employee that has to update their database, it is the cost of lost advertising or customers angry that your company is providing services to terrorists.
To be clear, you're referring to "the right, led by the President, organizes and executes a violent attack on the Capitol, so companies refuse to continue providing services to those people" as a "tit for tat".
You can still say whatever you want, you just can't compel others (including businesses) to assist you in conveying your speech. This is really basic stuff, it is surprising how difficult many otherwise smart people are finding it.
Sure. There is no way to eliminate whacko conspiracy theorists and fringe forums. They existed before social media too. The idea is that interpersonal dynamics can help manage these things: if your uncle Frank posts about chemtrails, then hopefully someone he trusts can point him in a different direction in the comments, and if not, at least the people reading it will see the comments. If Facebook just surfaces this information, you get none of this: click and boom you're in an alternative reality full of lizard people and humans in cosmic battle.
Make sure you write down the name of who you spoke to, and see if they'll give you their email address. Then you have way to follow up, either directly or by calling the office and saying you had spoken to so-and-so and wanted to follow up. Obviously the people you speak to can't promise much of anything, but if you bring up something that sounds important to them, they will do what they can to move it through the bureaucracy. Follow-ups can help keep it on the radar or make it more urgent. Obviously there are no fool-proof methods here (and congress is full of fools). And people don't like to say no, so you may need to read between the lines sometimes to figure out that they decided your requests were inconsistent with whatever political school of thought that representative subscribes to.
There were people with zip tie handcuffs and guns in the chamber, fortunately after it had been evacuated. I don't know what they planned to do, but I imagine best case would be a hostage situation where they demand that the electoral count be stopped until their conspiracy theories about electoral fraud were considered. Worst case they execute democratic leadership, which is far from an implausible scenario given reports that they were looking for Pelosi and Schumer's offices (and found them, and looted them). Keep in mind that their media sphere is full of conspiracy theories that accuse politicians of child abuse. Minimizing what happened here would be a big mistake.
We might consider more or less eliminating automated recommendation systems on social media and return to, as you put it, "just showing photos of puppies", i.e. just showing posts from entities that you have explicitly friended or followed. This won't entirely solve the problem of people coalescing into radical groups, but it might help if learning about the group required someone posting it to their feed for everyone to see.
You can walk into the office, but you won't get a meeting with Wyden if you aren't on the schedule. Instead, if you are a resident of the state, they'll have staff that will meet with you in a small conference room, take notes, maybe ask a few questions. These are typically fairly young intern types, so don't expect too much depth from them (in my experience, you're going to get some very naive questions if you bring up anything related to science/tech policy). They'll then tell you that you are being heard, thank you, and send you on your way. This is occasionally a useful thing to do, e.g. to bring attention to a niche issue, cause, or special interest that their office might not be aware of at all.