That's just an argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity, sob story). These modifications to the Linux kernel weren't even the core of the TiVo product, and the TiVo product was an end user solution consisting of hardware, software, and support (so a full stack, like an Apple TV or an Nvidia Shield). He's also ignoring the patent argument, and the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 or later (EDIT: I stand corrected; licensed under GPLv2. That doesn't change the point though).

His argument wasn't rare back in those days though (we're talking about a time where Microsoft was still dominant and actively hampering the FOSS movement), and it was an argument for BSD license as well.

The way companies have worked around GPLv2 and GPLv3 is Web 2.0/3.0: HTTP(S) and HTML/JS being proprietary software, though the source is readable, and the entire stack behind it (ie. akin to LAMP) which generates the data having the ability to be part of a closed source or proprietary ecosystem. They furthermore locked it down with things like paywalls, apps (instead of website or PWA which might give the users some power back). In such a world, how can us mere mortal users even verify things like GDPR?

The FSF foresaw this, btw, and IIRC (at the very least free software advocates foresaw it) considered having the GPLv3 apply on protocols like HTTP(S). That didn't fly though, and resulted in obvious backfire as well because it went against the business model of many for profits...