I do not particularly care for Bryson, more so with how he's been acting recently, but I really don't disagree with his interpretation of the rules in this instance.

The rules say if any part of your ball is touching the OB line, the ball is in play. The rules official said the OB line wasn't the fence, even though the fence was indeed the marker for OB, but rather the OB line was the closest part of the fence towards the course. That is a very complicated ruling to understand when now the fence isn't what's marking OB, but post to post of the fence is what's marking OB. To make it simpler the rules official implied that if he painted an OB line, the back edge of the OB line would clip the front edge of the fence post, thus since his ball wasn't touching the front edge of the fence post, but only touching/underneath the part of the fence that wasn't the post, it was OB.

Bryson then referenced a ruling last year where the fence was chain link and it was ruled in bounds but chain link fences also have posts, so if the chain link fence was attached to the other side of the post, instead of the side of the post facing the golf course, it would have been OB?

I'm not justifying his reaction as reasonable or anything like that but I do understand how the PGA tour not just marking a white line to show OB two inches in front of the fence overly complicated this issue and did make it seem like it was basically just a random non-objective ruling. Had they ruled in play I don't know what they do though. They can't let him walk around on private property to hit his shot (go inside the fence which is what he asked to do). Still though taking two club lengths as an unplayable seems like a better outcome for the confusion of the ruling IMO.