I understand the sentiment, but why chose MIT license then?
GPL would be the right choice if one wants to stop companies profiting from free work without giving anything back.
I'm not judging the author here, but on one hand I understand the frustration, on the other hand the package probably owes its popularity in part to its very permissive license.
Anyway, a fork maintained by the companies that use the package would still be a better outcome than keep working for them for free (or remove the package entirely).
Internal changes aren't going to be detectable, so it feels like the best you can hope for is that they don't want the maintenance burden of a patch set on top of your project. At that point it's not much different than MIT.
That said, AGPL would scare off most companies :p
The whole "contributing to open source" while effectively saying "I think open source should not exist and is rip of" makes no sense in world where literally nothing forces you to create open source.
IMO this was not the most graceful way to make the point, but at the end of the day it's his project, his code. If you want the expectation of it always working, then pay him. Don't bitch and moan that the old man giving out free bread on the steps isn't here this morning.