what I want to know is why is matt addressing a month-old post when he could be ranting against someone for forcing h3h3 to drastically change their business model
nobody forced h3h3 to change their business model. a news outlet reported their opinion on an issue and multiple companies made their own decision on how to spend their own money. if you want to punish news for doing exactly what it's supposed to do, go join the fascist league and spread the word about how media needs to be censored.
people like these dudes or Humble Water Filter Merchant and PJW spread their own right/wrong/offensive/decisive opinions because they live in the united states and are entitled to do so. coca cola and other companies decided to use their freedom to read these articles and used that same freedom to make a business decision in order to avoid getting hurt by consumers due to the articles. now these youtubers are using their free will to search for an alternative that will generate ad revenue. life goes on
whose fault is it- WSJ for posting news articles on an issue? the ad companies for looking out for their best interest? youtube for forcing to cut revenue on videos due to a loss of money? the consumers who show dissatisfaction in the videos being advertised on? it doesn't matter who you choose, their entirely within their rights to do what they did.