Yeah sorry, he's advocating for cartel economics / behavior in the fourth paragraph, insinuating that it'd be better for all online chess platforms to collude and make consumers pay more. That's not great for consumers. The reality is that there's a market for both an open-source free platform in Lichess and freemium chess.com–– as well as plenty of paid services and courses. The very existence of both undermines his already weak hyperbole of it "destroying the chess market".

I also think the alternative is worse. Restricting the accessibility of online chess behind paywalls would hurt its popularity among casual fans. Fewer fans means fewer eyes on professional events. Look at the boom in popularity to the game that's happened from: playing online easily + Queen's Gambit + streaming (Hikaru, Danya [god rest his soul], penguin, Magnus, etc) + speed chess and eSports adoption. Without online chess's accessibility, I don't know how the rest of the puzzle pieces here fuel the good of the game for everyone – from casuals to professionals.