Everything you disagree with isn't incorrect.
It reads to me like Microsoft didn't pay him what he thought he earned from the exploits (i have no idea who is in the right on that), and then he published a zero day with no notification and threatened the company. Doesn't seem ridiculous to ban them at that point.
Again, I don't know the details so I cant say who is in the right, but the researcher comes off as a little bit unhinged and entitled. Not paying a bug bounty is 'ruining my life'?
You are unsure of the details, so you instinctively choose to align with the $3T corporation. Further you assert the responsible discloser is "unhinged" for having a reaction to sustained abusive behavior by that $3T corporation.
Who exactly is unhinged here: the person who had a human reaction to abuse, or the person who thinks they are social in-group status with Microsoft? My vote is on the latter.