License change request are never something maintainers are looking forwared to, but your first mail was at least on point and factual.
The following is certainly not a charitable view of what you've written, but this view is defensible, and you should really change the way you approach people.
You start by questioning their right to make that decision and their personal standing ('When you say “we”, are you talking about Facebook or the random smaller contributors?').
You pretty much attack them ('I hope you realize you could be biased.' – and no, "could" doesn't make the recipient read it more charitably).
You call them idiots ('At the same time, you should know ').
You helpfully point out that their baby isn't really theirs, but belongs to humanity everafter ('You won’t be there forever').
You order them to give you more fodder to attack them ('When you say “thought”, have you written any of it down').
Because you really want to try to start a shit storm ('I may quote your non-defense').
You accuse them of wasting your time ('I just spend several minutes looking')
Another attack ('Your last dismissive answer'), followed by an open threat ('create a copyleft fork').
They were visibly pissed, but replied nonetheless, albeit very short (that's a clue!).
Now it gets better!
You don't even know them ('It don’t know any of these names:' / 'I don’t know who the authors are of this project'). Obviously they should just roll over.
Then the exposure theory that all artists so dearly love ('relicensing would get you plenty of news articles'). Of course, I haven't ever dabbled in ML, but even I know the name PyTorch. Clearly they need another news article to take off.
The rest of your mail was actually quite okay, but still feels like nagging.
I also have my problems with effectively communicating, but really, you should run mails like these by someone else before sending them.