Personally, I don't think that the "invisible chains" argument is overstated in the video, largely because he lays out the issue in a very matter-of-fact manner and doesn't engage in hyperbole in terms of either rhetoric or presentation; there's no exaggerated yelling or screaming into the mic, no statements of "it's the death of imagination!" or similar over-the-top statements. He's simply pointing out that this is an aspect to using graphically-immersive 3D VTTs, particularly when they have a lot of interface with what the PCs can do. The more you rely on those built-in functions for interaction with the game world, the more interactions that the system isn't built to handle are marginalized, even inadvertently.
Likewise, there's nothing wrong with pointing to that as a reason to object to a mode of game-play that he doesn't prefer. It's everyone's prerogative to object to the greater prominence of things they don't care for, particularly when doing so marks a shift in resources away from things they do like (whether those resources are on behalf of the creators or among the general audience). That's only a problem when you start making moral judgments about a preferred style, but again, that doesn't happen in the video.
As for issues that aren't raised in that video, but have been here, I largely agree with you that the focus on micro-transactions can function as an effective replacement for minis, and that such a shift could be seen as simply a virtual form of minis. However, I think that there are additional issues which require that we, at the very least, put an asterisk on that level of reasoning.
For one thing, miniatures (i.e. figurines that exist in real-space) have a universality to them which VTT tokens simply don't have. You don't need to use officially-licensed D&D minis in your D&D game; you can use anything from official minis to off-brand minis to Warhammer figures, heroclix, cardboard pawns, etc. And this works with virtually any tabletop game where minis are utilized. Your D&D orc figure can work almost as well as a Shadowrun ork (even if the clothes worn might not be exactly appropriate). So you have multi-applicability not only of the type of minis used, but also in what games they're used in.
VTT tokens won't have that. Even if it's possible for various VTTs to be built on the same engine, and for programmers to make their assets transportable between them, there's no incentive to do so; why bother making it easier for someone to move their stuff over to your competition? So instead, you have people locked into a particular VTT where they've sunk more and more money into building a "mini" collection that can only consist of what's in the official store, but can't be used anywhere else. (Ironically, being locked into a particular digital ecosystem is something brought up in the video.)
Now, admittedly, some VTTs do let you import at least some assets (that I know of) for making virtual tokens, so this might seem like a non-issue. But as VTTs evolve into a more graphically-intensive and interactive 3D environment (like what we saw in WotC's demo showcase a few months ago), I expect this to cease to be the case. Most people aren't digital artists, and can't custom-build assets that are then uploaded into the program. So it'll turn into Fortnite-style "packages" of $0.99 items which can only be used on that platform, with no alternatives if you don't like what's in their shop.
Will we, the gaming community, be "just fine" with that approach? I don't think it will be the death of the gaming community, or the imagination, but I do think it represents a contraction. There's a trade-off going on between creativity and convenience, one which WotC/Hasbro clearly favors because it puts more money in their pocket, but which represents a step back from the inherent "hackability" of how tabletop RPGs work. That's really the point of the entire video, and I think it's a point that's both legitimate and worth considering.
