So, Scott Adams, has his regular (perhaps daily), video blog. Open to any fans of his, if they want, where he says some stuff. A bit like he would, if he had friends round, for morning coffee and a group chat, about things.
Which many people do (video blogs), in the modern world.
No one is forced to watch it, he is not ramming stuff down peoples throats. As Dave has said, if you follow his stuff, regularly. It is a gentler, less dramatic experience, where he discussing various things.
So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.
Respectfully disagree.
If what you suggest was actually the case, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'. He admitted the Rasmussen poll results he pushed were questionable before he even taped the show. To me, that is not the same thing as just sitting around expressing your personal opinion.
With any freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely. IMO "he chose poorly".
Because of watching a little bit of Scott Adams videos, and reading some stuff. I think you may have partly got the wrong idea.
My understanding (or feeling about it, N.B./Disclaimer I've watched way, way too little of his stuff, for what I'm about to say, to have even a gentle level of guaranteed accuracy here), is what he (Scott Adams), meant. Was that he was going to say what he thought, and he doesn't care if the 'cancel' culture and things, get angry with it, and cancel him/Dilbert.
So, although it is still intentional, it is not so much, intentional, to gain extra free advertising and hence make more money. But intentional, so that they can have the freedom of speech rights, to put their point of view across.
Which is a subtle, but rather important distinction.
EDIT: His recognition of the poll result, being possibly misleading and/or partly or fully wrong. Could be him choosing, his favorite option, that the poll result was valid (just like a politician, typically would be expected to do), rather than meaning he caused this 'cancel' fracas, intentionally.
In fairness to your post. I'm NOT clear, how intentional or not, it has been. So I'm still open, to believe it either way (i.e. he did it intentionally, or he decided he just didn't care, they can cancel him if they want to).