I don't agree that "If we could not fuck with accessibility devices which disabled people rely on, that'd be great. Thanks." can be classified as "broad outrage

I don't agree that "If we could not fuck with accessibility devices which disabled people rely on, that'd be great. Thanks." can be classified as "broad outrage". --- It can be simultaneously true that "this particular incident resulted in no actual harm (because the prank messages still usefully conveyed the required information)" and "messing with accessibility devices has the potential to cause harm, and it would be preferable for well-intentioned pranksters to direct their efforts elsewhere". In particular, I'd still push back on a claim that these messages were still useful because they conveyed the same instruction. Someone relying solely on this announcement (without the ability to visually verify the situation) might have reasonable cause to doubt whether the announcement is still trustworthy. After all, they might reason, if a prankster is able to change the message, might they also able to change the playback conditions? Or might they be able to switch the "don't walk" and "walk" announcements? Anything which causes the UX to deviate from the known, reliable, trustworthy pattern introduces significant trust-costs.