That's sound advice, but to give a comparison: Roman Polanski didn't just post divisive tweets, he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and has been a fugitive from justice for more than 40 years now. Surely that's worse? And yet, people still keep funding his film making, and his name is on all the films. Why is a rapist given full credit for his creative works, while an idiot with a twitter account stripped of his credit?

He wasn’t stripped of it, he willingly signed all his creative rights away in exchange for $2bn.

It would seem odd, that if he did sign that away, that he nonetheless appeared in the credits of Minecraft, until he caused social media fury, and then Microsoft removed him from the credits.

It does seem crazy to me, given he lived in Sweden, where copyright transfers only economic rights, not moral rights (such as the right to be identified as the creator of a work), but allows the author to waive their moral rights, that he would waive his moral rights.

In any case, he seems pretty miserable, regardless of his twitter outbursts.

It’s not remotely odd, his behaviour online made his name a liability to the Minecraft brand and Microsoft made steps to distance him from it.

For most game developers, getting a credit on a game is not a creative badge of honour, it is sometimes the only hard proof that they worked on a title. It’s part of their portfolio and often essential for their future career and earning potential. This is why they fight so hard for a credit that is essentially free for a company to give.

Everybody knows Notch made Minecraft. He no longer depends on the credit for his future earnings. He chose to give it up.

This isn't 100% correct. He is still in the credits[1] but some splash texts about him were removed[2].

[1]: https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/credits (ctrl+f "Markus Persson") [2]: https://minecraft.wiki/w/Java_Edition_19w13a#General_2