So he typically advertises for VPNs? I don’t understand.
He “typically” discusses interesting places/people. In the first 5 or so seconds of the video he discusses a fictitious person and how they “weren’t protected from viruses, but you could be with a VPN”. So he transitions from his typical video style to a VPN ad to then highlight all of the things wrong with VPN ads.
In addition to what the other commenter said, this case took place in California where abortion is fully legal and constitutionally protected. Not to minimize what’s going on in other states of course, but you’re comparing apples to oranges with that statement.