I just think there's a difference between a DM that makes the best decisions they can and DMs doing it because of ego or control reasons. For example I will never run a game wit evil PCs because that game wouldn't be fun for me. In the same way, I wouldn't want to run a game centered around domains because I likely wouldn't do a very good job with it.I didn't read his comment as casting shade on DMs. I think that it hard to argue that DMing can require a big investment of time and attention and at some point most DMs will hit a limit on how much book keeping they want to do. The DM has to have fun too. I really enjoyed running my 5e campaign I just wrapped up, but I certainly introduced a lot more moving parts with stronghold rules, factions and reputation rules, downtime, creature component and alchemy rules, etc. It worked for me because I only run one session a month and it gives a between-session play-by-e‑mail side game of sorts. Some DMs just want to run simple games and there is nothing wrong with that, or with observing that this is the case for many DMs (I would guess most, but that's just a guess).
Claiming that people do something because of ego, because they can't stand players being actually able to do things, is attributing their decisions to just about of the worst motivation possible. I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're just making the best decision possible to make the game fun for everyone at the table, including running a game they'll enjoy.
Maybe it's just a pet peeve but attributing DMs making a decision to restrict or not allow something to "ego" or wanting control of the game is a reason given far too often.