I think it's a fair statement for one big reason: this isn't an isolated case. You can find hundreds if not thousands of examples on YouTube of legitimate fair

I think it's a fair statement for one big reason: this isn't an isolated case. You can find hundreds if not thousands of examples on YouTube of legitimate fair use being censored because it's more financially prohibitive to piss of lawyers who want to sue for everything than customers who want to use your service. Could they have used a different streamer? Sure. Would this have still happened? Probably not but who knows. Does this represent a trend in copyright enforcement? Yep.