Maybe it has something to do with money. From what I understand, Kick.com pays something like 95/5 to the streamer vs. 70/30 with YouTube and 50/50 with Twitch. The founders of Kick.com have shady backgrounds and they have less moderation which attracts those streamers accused of homophobic, misogynistic, and predatory behavior.
edit: corrected numbers
While that is true, from what I understand from reading up on this topic some more, Nintendo (for example) has always taken a 20% cut, even on physical games and retailers would take ~25% in addition to another ~5% by the manufacturer. With physical sales, the publisher could expect about 50% of the sales while with digital sales you can expect roughly 70%. Of course, this doesn't even take into account things like licensing fees. I am sure this is all very simplified and subject to change, but it gives us a rough idea of where the money is going - in the pocket of the publisher.
Sources (not the best but there isn't a lot of public data on this): https://www.konvoy.vc/newsletters/evolution-of-console-business-models https://www.serkantoto.com/2020/12/30/price-video-console-game-digital-physical/ https://www.zeldadungeon.net/forum/threads/game-price-breakdown-digital-vs-physical.62076/ https://globalxetfs.co.jp/en/research/video-games-esports-building-on-2020s-rapid-growth/index.html
So, KDE Plasma but even more bugs?
edit: I was kidding. The "KDE is buggy" meme has been a long-standing joke on top of Wayland having a reputation of not running well for many Linux users, especially NVIDIA users.
And the publisher will state something like "industry standard" or something like that which really means "we charge $80 because other people charge $80." In reality, they no longer have to worry about printing games (so that cost is gone) and no longer have to compete for shelf space, there is infinite supply (digital games), the cost of technology decreases over time, and the increase acceptance of DLC and digital marketplaces. The increase of prices only benefits overall profits and is anti-consumer. The consumer does not see a decrease in prices when they fire thousands of people or other expenses are cut. Instead they just raise the price. 100% greed.
I play on the right. That is also where I tend to keep videos and music open. Left is for general web browsing and the terminal.
I think the trick is finding a balance between ignoring it and keeping up with what is happening. Most of the National News is just reports of what terrible thing the White House is doing today. Those reports are unnecessary and time consuming. Don't give into the rage bait. A lot of this is easier said than done but try to find a balance.
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.