For your first point, the moderators don’t own the subreddits they moderate, so the users should not have to attempt to recreate a community every time they encounter a power-tripping moderator. The moderators are stewards that are supposed to reflect the desires of the community, not owners who get to control the ability to use that community based on their whims.
Reddit picked two accessibility apps seemingly at random and ignored the requests of /r/Blind for example.
How does this dubious and unsourced claim address anything I wrote even if it were true?
> People unhappy with moderator choices can do what they always did, make the community that matches what they want.
You can't on one hand protest that people should "do the right thing" and on the other hand do the "well akshually the rules..." thing. Going by the rules and what has always been done, reddit's owners can remove moderators and set API pricing how they like.
> ... Except the blind of course, or anyone else with accessibility needs. They'll be required to pay extra for access
People who "have accessibility needs" can interact with computers and web pages. And it doesn't even present a coherent argument to what I wrote anyway, it's just an appeal to emotion. Users can not be trusted with the decision to participate in communities they built because doing so would be an attack on blind people? That dog doesn't hunt.
People unhappy with moderator choices can do what they always did, make the community that matches what they want.
> if people like it and want to use it and continue to participate
... Except the blind of course, or anyone else with accessibility needs. They'll be required to pay extra for access