That's fine, but the article makes it seem that this is some kind of out-of-the-ordinary agreement. It's fine if you're opposed to such agreements as a matter of principle. It's just strange to single out Oculus for this. It's as though the original poster has never actually read a ToS document before.
And some of us wouldn't get too worried even if Twitter did decide to use one of our 120 character bon mots for advertising purposes, or put it in a "best of Twitter" movie, or whatever.
That's an entirely different thing from giving up the rights to code that you may have worked on for months.