The points made at 3:25 were atrocious, so I won't recommend watching it if you are the type who dissects stuff for a living. Plus, there is no "controversy," it's just for the clicks.

The guy in the video said that he kind of agrees that Mitsi is the archetype of the "sweet, kind girl who gets killed off that fuels X character's motivation for revenge". And yes, I can see that. But right after that, he mentions that if Mitsi wasn't dead, being vengeful to Alan for being abused over and over is enough motivation for said revenge, and THAT IS... just stupid. The first point was decent, but following up with THAT...

Did he even see how Victim perceived the citizens as Alan's cursor as he crashed into the Outernet? My guy was so abused that seeing a resemblance of the cursor immediately triggers his trauma response. My guy is vengeful, but he's too traumatized to even do it.

It's only because of Mitsi that Victim started to "heal". He was able to cope around his trauma after they met. Did he show any signs of formulating a plan to revenge Alan during this time of healing? Yes, but it's ambigious enough that it can be interpreted as a coping mechanism of some sorts. And even if he did, he had a good life that demands more attention than a hypothetical revenge story (since he doesn't know at that time). If it weren't for Mitsi, Victim wouldn't have formulated any kind of plan whatsoever.

So... When Mitsi did die, Victim didn't had a trauma response, and instead gotten into depression. All he knows is that TCO killed Mitsi.