I think that both sides make good points but that ego has gotten in the way of pragmatism... I disagree 100% with the way Crowder handled the Daily Wire contract issue and his behavior since has been disappointing. That doesn't negate the facts of the matter... that the Daily Wire contract format hamstrings any content creator who's ideas push the envelope of what YT considers acceptable. There should be some means for content creators (businesses) to avoid financial ruin if they run afoul of what is already established as a left biased censorship body at YT. The DW contract stipulations effectively muzzle anyone who wishes to present a case (even if it is factually based) that could result in a shadow-ban, strike or demonitization and when you (DW) are the gatekeeper of conservative content on YT, putting forward a contract with no protections in place to the contracting party is a tacit acceptance of leftist policy and leaves you one very small step removed from controlled opposition in my opinion.

That said, Crowder's approach here did more collateral damage than the value of the potential "fix"... in other words, the effort was not / will not be worth the return.

What I find disappointing is that neither party here has the strategic forethought to shut their mouths and take this squabbling back behind closed doors where it belongs.

However, the simple fact remains, if Crowder was unhappy with the deal, he should have just said "no". After all, the Daily Wire is a private business and within the law, they can make their own rules. If you don't like it, you don't have to work for them. It would be like you hiring an employee, and they would set the rules for which they would work for you. Doesn't make much sense to me. I just think Crowder was way wrong here and when he went public, The Daily Wire had to go public and react.