Advertisers do not want their products advertised next to adversarial content. The exodus of advertisers on Twitter/X is a great parallel - flood a user generated content platform with content that does not bode for positive brand associations, and brands stop paying. You can argue that it's "puritanical ethics" at play here if you'd like, but I see this more as wanting to associate their brands with mass market appeal.
Secondly, the moment you cross into pornographic content, your payment processors start bailing. This, in my opinion, plays more into your perception that mass standards for acceptable content influence the decision. I can't think of a major payment processor that permits their service to be used to pay for pornographic content, and that is because it's high risk. It's high risk because it's rife with chargebacks. Things like claims "I didn't pay for this!" when a partner happens to see a charge for a pornographic product, buyer's remorse as the truth of a parasocial relationship plays out to an unsatisfying conclusion, whatever the reason, payment processors just don't want to be associated with it.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but in a sense, this is companies choosing what markets they want to serve.