If somebody puts together a different tip jar which supports and even wider variety of people, or does so in a more equitable way, I want to be free to choose that one instead.
Let content compete for legitimacy based on how integrated into the wider community it's associated tip jar is.
Not everybody wants a tip jar. Why should you get to impose your views over that of the author who’s book you want to read?
I don't care if they think I should read it in a couch or a hammock or a bathtub, why should I care whether they think I should print it on a page or project it on my ceiling or peer at it through a cloud of malware?
There are people who want to turn the world into a skinner box. I'm not going to fund their project just because I appreciate an author who has made a deal with them at some point.
If I can't pay an author without also paying my enemies, then I'm not going to pay the author. But I'd really rather pay the author.
Because they provide a platform (making content more visible), payment processing (which can be 3% or more for some payment methods), customer support etc.
If content producers don't need any of that, they can always have a self-hosted website with their own donation button (or physical mailing address for checks and banknotes, cryptocurrency address etc).
> I think all authors and other content producers should have sort of a tip jar
That tip jar would cut out everybody else involved in the production of a book and in getting you to even find out about it existing.
Every author has the option to self-publish and set their own price (including a "pay-as-you-wish" option), but on the other hand, if they prefer the (relatively) lower risk of going with a traditional publisher, you should also respect that decision and not sidestep that by unilaterally deciding that "oh, I'd prefer you would have made this DRM-free and pay-as-you-wish, here's a check for $20!".