My main point was it is probably about the money. Afterall, streaming is a business and a difference between what site pays versus the other can be huge.

I then added about the shadiness, agreeing with what you wrote in the OP that “people dislike Kick saying it is less ethical.” I will expand upon that idea since you are accusing me of having an “proletarian” agenda. The “shady” part is based on the founder’s background in online gambling (stake.com), particularly crypto gambling, as ethically questionable due to potential for addiction, financial ruin, and regulatory grey areas. Also, the purpose of Kick, especially in the early days, was suspected to be a way to funnel traffic to Stake.com.

Even more, with the shadiness, Kick’s stated goal is “creator-friendly” moderation and avoiding “cancel culture,” the effect of their looser policies has been that controversial streamers (especially those who lean right or have been associated with right-wing talking points) find a more welcoming home there. This leads to the “right-wing coded” perception.

Streamers weigh both the financial elements and the ethical environment when choosing a platform. For many, Kick’s controversies make it more complex.