Because they gain viewers who agree with their ideology by "fighting the good fight" decrying pornography. It's a near-century long staple of conservatives to be for the status quo on indecency as the view of it shifts over the decades. Banging pots and raising noise on the evils of naked human beings lends them conservative credibility among the kind of person that attaches to a conservative political pundit for their views.

I mean just try to think of the kind of person that genuinely thinks we need to ban pornography as Matt Walsh does in your link. Who would they look to to know what their opinion is on new topics? Probably that bright young man on the split screen warning you to keep your grandkids safe from the internet.

But then when good media has nudity in it, eh, you know, they aren't going on fox news for a segment about it, so their persona with octogenarian fans is safe. It's on the internet and requires you to double click, so it has an entirely different, younger audience. And going "I dont watch game of thrones: it has boobs!" gets you the kind of reaction you can expect if that's your online viewpoint.

Maybe it's more honest with the HotD reviews? Maybe the whole thing is hammed up on Fox News to appeal to generous conservative private donations that are often extremist American Christians like Koch or Prager or the person getting all the money out of Hobby Lobby?

What is their actual, person opinion? We probably won't know. It's their job, and where they make their money, to have a congruent, hard-lined ideology with pre-internet conservatives on the topic.

But, also, the almighty algorithm needs those clicks! So we get Ben REACTS! segments as well.