Because, clearly, it is impossible for something as huge as millions of lives to depend on a an Art academy's decision.

Imagine, with every rejection letter the dean of admissions sends out, he has a brief moment of worry: "is this letter going to put someone on the path to becoming a mass murderer?" His sense of perspective would also be troubling, as his ability to predict the difference acceptance will have on his students' lives is insufficient to fruitfully worry about those sorts of events. It's not a statement of impossibility, it's a statement of improbability. Giving undue weight to the example of Hitler is availability bias.

O RLY?

Yes, really. I presume you've read about fictional evidence and the conjunction fallacy? If you want to argue that LW's eyeballs should be monetized, argue that directly! We'll have an interesting discussion out in the open. But assuming that LW's eyeballs should be monetized because you can construct a story in which a few dollars makes the difference between the SIAI succeeding and failing is not rational discourse. Put probabilities on things, talk about values, and we'll do some calculations.