This is the clearest and most detrimental aspect of shutting this down. So many blind and/or deaf YouTube visitors depend on user-generated captioning.
One nitpick, I would disagree that accessibility features will always be low usage. Many accessibility features have become ubiquitous and essential features of many products. And many people preferred such captions who did not identify as needing accessibility features.
Not everything is identity politics. I think GP is speaking of those who signal a _need_ for accessibility features. These people would 'identify as needing accessibility features'. Others do not _need_ such features and therefore do not signal such. These people may still appreciate them on occasion. I for one, definitely would not claim to need closed captions, yet, if subtitles are available I may well use them. I might use them if my speakers are broken or if my roommate is asleep and I left my headphones in my car.
The virtual keyboard is another one that is incredibly useful to everyone when that one key on your keyboard craps out and you have to hobble along until the new one comes in the mail.
> And many people preferred such captions who did not identify as needing accessibility features
Good job on the selective quoting. /s
As a simple example, non-native speakers of a language may not identify as needing “accessibility features”, but captions certainly can help some of these folks.
That’s just one simple example. There are others.
For me personally, as a native speaker of English with good hearing, I often turn on captions for people who speak with heavy accents and videos with ambient noise that muddles the speaker’s audio.
One nitpick, I would disagree that accessibility features will always be low usage. Many accessibility features have become ubiquitous and essential features of many products. And many people preferred such captions who did not identify as needing accessibility features.