At the time of writing, Korean drama Squid Game is officially the most watched Netflix program of all time. This is a huge accomplishment, especially given that the majority of viewers do not speakKorean. The massive success with not just viewership but also critical acclaim has led to a number of conversations about the approach of consuming foreign language media – particularly in the United States, whose English-speaking market has been typically considered hard to penetrate.

When English-speakers watch Squid Game there are three English-languages settings that can be toggled: subtitles, dubbing, or closed captions. Dubbing replaces the original spoken audio with an English version. Subtitles provide written transcriptions of spoken words and, sometimes, translations of on-screen text. Closed captions are subtitles that also provide descriptions of sound, such as “somber music” or “loud crash;” these are particularly useful for people who are hard of hearing.

Some Korean speakers have criticized the dub and the closed captions for inaccurately portraying the original dialogue. The controversy is a good reminder that translation is not an exact science, but rather an art. For example, Korean terms such as chaemyun (체면) or nunchi (눈치) have no direct English equivalent, just as English terms like plead the Fifth or flabbergasted have no direct Korean parallel. Idioms can be similarly complicated, which means translators have to make difficult decisions.

This connects to a larger debate about whether foreign language media is best consumed with dubbing or subtitles. Advocates of subtitles argue that it allows viewers to hear the tone and emotion of the original actors and, thus, is closer to the original medium. Those who prefer dubs say that the convenience factor of not having to read text enables them to more comfortably engage with the content.

After the success of Parasite, director Bong Joon-ho infamously commented, “once you overcome the 1-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” His snark is understandable – in stark contrast to the vast majority of countries, the English-speaking United States market is considered difficult for subtitled content to penetrate. This not only hurts consumers’ choice, as Bong noted, but also prevents them from experiencing a more diverse range of media.

The question of why English-speakers in the United States are opposed to consuming media in other languages is a hard one to answer. A huge component is that there is no shortage of domestic English-language film and TV productions coming out of Hollywood. However, xenophobia likely plays a large role as well: emphasizing the increase of non-English resources in the U.S. has been a far-right anti-immigrant dog whistle for years.

At the same time, the importance of subs to ensure accessibility is often overlooked. There are many conditions – such as having a visual impairment or dyslexia – that can make dubbing a better option. In fact, streaming services often include dubbed tracks that describe on-screen text and actions to help make media more accessible. (Squid Game has this, but only in Korean.) There are also people who are hard of hearing, for whom subtitles or closed captions are essential.

The “subbed vs. dubbed” debate should not allow streaming providers, such as Netflix or Apple TV+, to escape culpability. More onus should be placed on content platforms to better educate users about their audio and visual options. In addition? When content has poor translations, individual translators should not be blamed but rather those who overwork and underpay translators. At the same time, it is also crucial that conversations about regionalizing media do not overlook those with disabilities.

‍