Sure, but the more important factor in these sorts of relationships is that there is in fact usually a binding contract. Twitch refers to these as "Partners" who they have extended a contract to. While I am sure Twitch has the ability to sever that contract essentially at will, it doesn't mean they are exempt from legal repercussions of doing so.

I believe there's precedent for them severing a massive partner at will, in the case of Dr Disrespect.

Yes, but it's always always better to have a policy in place than to make one-off decisions.

This isn't always feasible or practical. People can't always foresee the future (otherwise gambling wouldn't be a thing). So we can't assume that a policy can cover every possible scenario that might occur. Things happen that practically nobody thought might happen. This is why "escape hatch" clauses were invented--to give parties a way out in the event that the unforeseen occurs.

I think the idea is what once the unforseen does happen, that you encode the decision you made into the rules.

Yeah that would be better, people should be able to know in advance what they're not allowed to do. I was just pointing out that they've done it before.

kind of agree with this statement in a free market sense, but the problem with these winner-take-most markets is there are often no reasonable alternatives.