It's relevant because the article acts like strictness is a unimodal thing. Riot decides how far they want to push it and some people will fall on one side and believe chat is overly sanitized while others will fall on the opposite side and believe that chat is overly toxic.

This makes it sound like the only reason someone could take issue with Riot being zealous with their policing is because that person wants to see these toxic behaviors in their game. The article quickly mentions hardware bans like they are magic, even though something like harder to spoof hardware is one of the reasons Riot would give for requiring invasive software.

And similar to how I won't accept a game requiring such invasive measures I also won't accept an article glossing over these things. Just like there are many players who see no problem with toxic behavior there are also many players who don't see any problem with Riot's measures or are simply uninformed, and the article should be more informative.