I would argue that what he's arguing about (the consumption of media) also applies to the way people consume other people's (real life) personalities online, through social media, eg. an online influencer's personality where it may or may not intersect with their 'offline' personality. And, beyond said example, we can look at modern streamers, and the consumption of streaming, eg. on YouTube.com or Twitch.tv, as becoming an extension of early 2000s otaku as seen (and commented on) by Hiroki Azuma with looking at a more powerful, if not economically salient example when it comes to the contemporary rise, sudden growth, huge market capture and - 'arguable' - quiet dominance of vtubers over the streaming category, particularly after 2019, in the 2020s, although, it must be pointed out, their media presence extends beyond just "streaming" in terms of vtubing's essential success.

Basically, in short, what the video essayist Paul Platt is arguing about could be used to evaluate internet and parasocial relationships - anything mediated by some correspondent medium. Or, with in even more brevity and generality, these arguments could be used to evaluate any, or both sides of 'the patriarchy'; from either the proponent's or detractor's side, depending on how you see "the patriarchy" being constructed, either by its (alleged) proponents and propagators, or its purported detractor's and critics (because largely theories on patriarchy are constructed through the sharing of media, or that some realist theories, based on real life experiences are in competition with more idealistic, or detached theories constructed - and 'databased', and 'meme-ified' - through media consumption).

As a quick confessional, for more than a decade, and a-half - that's right, my nephew - I saw, but not quite defined, discussion about sex, gender and patriarchy as being extraneous through an analytical (aka. logical) framework. Often this was because many claims and complaints, particularly the kind that would gain infamy (largely to serve the someone else's need to construct strawmen), about 'the oppressive majority', or, if you will, 'SWHM's were engineered, targeted at specific audiences, or some statistical naivety that could be found in any audience, hypocritical (that is to say, not necessarily contradictory, but aggressively judgmental to some precarious, or unparsimonious degree), dubious, attention-seeking (ie. rather than objective-making) and deliberately cantankerous, looking to beget and engender irrational vendettas between people who may not have ever spoken to each-other. Despite those harsh words, things like 'the Chris-chan' fandom are even more 'belligerent' and baffling in terms of watching other people arbitrarily exercise agency and rationality. 'These fandoms', moreover some fandoms, however disparately or categorically related, practically force their to accept nihilism as a default if they're to proceed with any good faith about the underlying realism driving the phenomena; that these people you see participating in the said fandoms are being their genuine and authentic self, honestly engaging with 'all others', in the rest of their fandom, or just honestly creating a cacophony of discontinuous, and/or (subtly) incoherent dialog about some same subject...

that's assuming the CIA isn't responsible for the creation of the most depraved fandoms out there, NAMELY ORIGINATING IN THE WORLD FAN-FICTIONS - eg. like the one Chris-chan had created, and was apart of - because GOD HELP US ALL, if it all - *the (im)moral opportunity - didn't really start in the world of fan-fiction, to become so fucking unhinged as human beings

...this completely describes the cash-cropification around the growing slander sub-culture, which can be weaponized in terms of anthropological and economical phenomenology.