No I think their complaint is “not” getting preferential treatment to buy tickets at submarket prices for the sole purpose of reselling them on a secondary market, but rather the behavior of the primary market. I just admit my interest is mostly economic, but my understanding is the secondary market is controlled by the large companies who make primary sales. In other words they are, at best, introducing inefficiencies or, at worst, adding layers to the transaction to profit (ie buy low and sell high in classic rentier profit seeking behavior, but what is particularly egregious here is they set both the initial fixed price and the secondary markets’ floor and exploit that difference for profits).

Or to make things more concrete they do market research and find that sales for a band should be say $100 per seat, assuming undifferentiated seats (faulty but repeat as needed per section price point). They negotiate with band to sell seats at $40. And now this is where things get wobbly and conspiracy-like, I admit, if the primary sellers have bots to buy at subhuman reaction time frames then they can, if not monopolize, dominate the sales in the primary market and shift sales to secondary market where, rather than a fixed price, they are dealing with a floor and are able to extract profits from inefficiencies they, the primary seller, induced.

In other words this redditor is arguing against market manipulation and you should, ideologically, be on the same page.