This argument is absurd. Nobody has a right to prevent someone form expressing themselves just because they can't enjoy it.
That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. And I don't see how this is going to fit in with your original point on multi-billion dollar corporations.
If we want to keep to the idea of absurd outcomes, why is it so much more absurd that Mr Michael has to make accessible videos but world's best phone design company isn't considered competent to design a phone? These are both pretty absurd.
Yes, you did. And then followed up with the same line of reasoning again in the next sentence:
> The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them.
But my painting is only meant to be appreciated visually because that is how I choose to express it. The idea that I should be forced to represent my art in a way I never intended it to be, is absurd.
But why you think that you can apply that sort of standard to yourself, but not see a level of absurdity in the EU commission trying to wrest phone design away from Apple of all companies is still a profound mystery even after all these posts. They have as much a "right" to design integrity as an artist does.
It has nothing to do with dignity it has to do with artistic vision. If you don't want to present your art in ways you don't intend it to be consumed, you shouldn't be forced. If someone else wants to do it for others, that's fine. You could even start a business taking art forms and describing them for people who can't appreciate them in their natural setting.