I suspect it does too, but probably for different reasons.
Criticism of "thought leaders" like these guys only strengthens the hold they have among the legions of young people who follow their words like gospel.
Any criticism of these figures for their platitude-heavy content and huckster-style marketing must also be a criticism of their followers as individuals, because they have bought into that mindset wholesale.
JBP, at least, generally seems to come off better than the people criticising him.
And young people have rebellious tendencies, they form countercultures. The current world culture tilts to left-progressivism, so there's a right-ish counterculture.
The problem is that many look at JBP interacting with clickbait and unethical journalists and conclude that he must be a great and honest thinker in comparison. Actual academics rarely engage with him, and not because they are afraid to or malicious but because he hasn't published much that can even be engaged with outside of psychology. The exception is Žižek, and we all saw how that went for Peterson.
Criticism of "thought leaders" like these guys only strengthens the hold they have among the legions of young people who follow their words like gospel.
Any criticism of these figures for their platitude-heavy content and huckster-style marketing must also be a criticism of their followers as individuals, because they have bought into that mindset wholesale.