That is an unfair characterization. They did what they did to protect their brand from a Streamer who is making money from other people’s content via monetizat

That is an unfair characterization. They did what they did to protect their brand from a Streamer who is making money from other people’s content via monetization and to which they wanted no association with. Many corporations wouldn’t allow monetization of their content by someone else so they were quite generous to generally allow it. But that comes at their sole discretion, as is their right. If somone reads the article you linked, I think this is pretty clear.