I have been a viewer of the Yogscast for a long time. Recently, specifically after enjoying their incredible Blood on the Clocktower series, I decided to become a paid member. I love the content, the production value, and the creativity. However, as a disabled individual with auditory processing issues, loving the content comes with a caveat: I often can’t understand it.
Recently, I took to the r/Yogscast subreddit to make a straightforward request: The implementation of verified human subtitles and a dedicated role for accessibility standards.
I didn’t think this would be controversial. I expected discussions on budget or logistics. Instead, I was met with a community and moderation team that seemed fundamentally unable to distinguish between “free speech” and the invalidation of human rights.
The Boundary That Was Crossed #
In my original post, I set a single, clear boundary. I explicitly asked that we discuss the logistics (how to afford it, how to implement it) but that we do not debate the necessity of it.
Why? Because accessibility is a UN-recognized human right. Debating whether disabled people deserve to understand the content is not an intellectual exercise; it is a debate on whether we are welcome in the space.
The community, unfortunately, could not keep to this boundary. Instead of engaging with the accommodation request, the focus immediately shifted to policing my tone and debating the validity of my request. It seems that in the Yogscast community, a disabled person asking for a seat at the table is viewed as “shutting down discussion” rather than asking for equity.
Suppression by Downvote #
There is a supreme irony in how the subreddit reacted. While commenters and moderators extolled the virtues of “free speech” and “open opinions,” they engaged in the very suppression they claim to detest.
Across the thread, my comments, regardless of content, were heavily downvoted.
When I clarified the difference between logistics and necessity? Downvoted.
When I politely pushed back against the idea that human rights are a matter of “opinion”? Downvoted.
This wasn’t a disagreement on facts. This was personal. It appeared that members of the community decided they didn’t like me or my boundary, and used the downvote button to bury my perspective. The result is a “hidden” comment section where the voice of the disabled person is silenced, while the voices of able-bodied people explaining why I’m wrong are amplified.
The Myth of “Polite” Exclusion #
The most disappointing aspect of this interaction was the response from the moderation team. When I asked that comments debating the necessity of accessibility be removed, a moderator replied:
“We will not do this for the same reason we are allowing your post. People are allowed to share their opinions, even if others (or we) disagree, as long as they share them politely enough!”
This statement highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of Freedom of Speech.
There is a critical nuance between a difference of opinion (e.g., “I didn’t like this video”) and speech that is inherently exclusionary (e.g., “We shouldn’t have to cater to disabled people”). By framing the debate of my human rights as just another “polite opinion,” the moderation team effectively took a stance: Inclusion in the Yogscast community is optional.
Allowing “polite” debates on whether or not I deserve to access the content sends a message that my existence here is up for a vote. It isn’t.
A Correction Too Late #
Eventually, after I expended significant emotional labor explaining this distinction, the moderator agreed with my request. They acknowledged the difference between debating logistics and debating necessity.
However, the damage was already done. While the moderator agreed deep in the comment thread to watch for rule-breaking comments, they did not edit or provide context to their initial, highly upvoted comment at the top of the post. To any casual observer, the “official” stance remained one that prioritized “polite opinions” over safety.
I acknowledge that the moderation team manually overrode Reddit’s automated spam filters to allow my post to appear in the first place. They “let me speak.” But allowing a person to speak is not the same as ensuring a safe environment for that speech.
Handing someone a microphone while allowing the crowd to throw rocks is not ‘inclusion.’ By leaving that initial dismissal unaddressed, the leadership implicitly endorsed the rocks.
Moving Forward #
I asked for a dedicated accessibility role. I asked for subtitles. I asked for my request to be treated with the dignity of a standard, not a debate.
Instead of active engagement or accommodation, I was met with pedantry about “opinions” and a refusal to protect a marginalized group from hostility.
The Yogscast has the budget for sets, costumes, and high-production value. It is time they budget for the basic respect of their disabled audience.
Accessibility is not a ’nice-to-have’ bonus feature for when the coffers are full; it is the rent you pay for occupying a space in the public sphere. Until the Yogscast and their community learn that human rights are not a ’topic for discussion,’ they aren’t just failing a standard, they are actively choosing exclusion.