You claimed they made several strawman arguments. The one you are pointing to is where they called your argument corporate apologia, which isn't a strawman, whether you are or are not l, as it's referring to the beneficiaries of your argument, which they argue to be corporations. The points they are making are sound.

For example (none of this is my actual beliefs), I could make an argument for unrestricted gun ownership. Someone, in disagreement with me, could say I need to take my gun lobby apologia and leave, after discussing why my position supports the gun lobby. In actuality, hypothetical me wants easier gun ownership for queer people and other marginalized groups. Me not supporting the gun lobby doesn't make that a strawman. They aren't making a strawman argument by saying because my argument supports the gun lobby, it is automatically invalid.

They do this exact same thing against your argument. They argue the points that your beliefs ultimately support corporations, not that your opinion is automatically invalid because you support corporations. If all they said was that last line about corporate apologia, you'd have a point, but they don't. You're simply misusing and diluting the strawman fallacy. You also claimed they made several strawman arguments, but failed to demonstrate the one example you pulled. I don't even really care about your arguments or theirs in regards to my response, as others have covered my beliefs already, I only am concerned in discussing the improper use of logical fallacies to discredit people you disagree with.