So, if your car's engine doesn't work, that car is oppressing you?
What if the car's engine dies? Or what if a program stops working because you upgraded a dependency? Is the car or program now suddenly oppressing you?
I'm sorry, but your logic is insanely flawed. A tool being broken isn't unethical. Being prevented from fixing or modifying your tool, whether it's broken or not, is unethical.
As far as accessibility is concerned, it absolutely sucks when, because of the negligence of sighted people, blind people are unable to use certain tools. This is not exclusive to computers. Many, many books are not available either in Braille or as audiobooks. Pretty much nothing you buy at the store includes instructions that can be read without sight. Many jobs are either impossible or extremely dangerous to do without sight.
But none of these are examples of oppression, and if a similar good that can be used by blind people is sold, but with restrictions on its use or modification, that is not better than the good that, due to negligence, is more difficult or impossible for blind people to use. I would argue the opposite: such a thing is even worse. It's an exploitation of the lack of support blind people get in a world of mostly sighted people.
I also want to point out that I'm very much into video games. I am actually very conscious about trying to make my games as accessible as possible; for example, my most recent game uses colors to differentiate teams, so I included a "colorblind mode" for colorblind and color-deficient people. But one group in particular I typically cannot include among my games' users is blind people, because there simply aren't a whole lot of interesting ideas for games that can work without visuals. That you apparently think that, because of this, I am oppressing blind people, and worse than a proprietary software developer, is insulting.
