So she evokes the image of LEGO being some entity with "clutches" - sounds pretty evil to me. Seems the author is not beyond using marketing ploys either.Yes, the language is shaped by her opinion of LEGO, or more likely, of corporations in general. But she isn't making an y real effort to convince you; it's an assumed context. If you think that corporations are great, you're not really the intended reader.
Really - are they not just a company trying to sell it's products? It seems to me the way you or the author words it is simply reframing that as something negative.
It's not reframing unless one considers that in general, a company selling their products is a good thing. But even if one does, there's still an argument to be made about LEGO's (and other corporations') way of doing so.
If the brand is "creativity is good, and you can actually build whatever you want with LEGO, not just the Star Wars model the evil empire suggests", where exactly is the problem? I'm pretty fine with such a brand.
Well, for one, there's the question of whether LEGO's actions are coherent with that brand. If the Star Wars model is the product of an evil empire, why are they selling it? Her point is that such incoherent is not some marketing failure, but actually a deliberate way to fake credibility by attacking the company that it's promoting.
(Of course, even the core part "you can actually build whatever you want with LEGO" suggests that you need to buy their products to be creative. But that's what every company would claim, so that goes back to the issue of how you view the whole system.)