I like that he goes right to the endgame. What is the point of her, and feminism's critique? It's informal censorship, or creating an environment of self-censorship. Until feminist critics specifically outline what their end goal is (you'll notice if you pay attention, they never, ever do) we have to assume it's censorship.
Next, he goes right at feminism which is the right call. I don't see the point in spending time on sex-positive feminists though. It's interesting, but it's not really clear to me from watching the video what they even stand for, and why they feel the need to cling to the feminism name at all. It seems like they're past that (is someone really going to call themselves a sex-positive feminist? Why not just say you're ... normal? Pro-equality for everyone, and not a fundamentalist?). The key point to take away from that whole section is that Anita's position is conservative, and really fully parallels the agenda of other conservative, fundamentalist critics of video games. It's also good to just get on record again that she doesn't come close to representing all women.
The whole section about her comments on youtube, I didn't really care for. It's hard for me to get worked up about her comments, or banning comments. I just don't care. I'll have to watch it again, because he tries to link it into a pattern that shows that she manipulated the whole controversy for funding. That's an interesting angle, but I don't know if he really covers it with enough depth.
Overall, good video. Glad I watched it, and I still think it contributes to the debate.