I see Wizards of the Coast has jumped on the "we can use anything you do as we please" bandwagon.
The new "Dungeon Master's Guild" programme allows people to create D&D 5th edition material and sell it in an official WotC web shop... while giving WotC the rights to use it as they please, forever and in any medium.
I've seen the same excuses that "It's just the boilerplate text needed for others to distribute your content" and/or "Of course they don't mean that/They would not abuse it".
As for the first: No, it is not the standard boilerplate. The standard version does indeed need to include a lot of scary-sounding text about world-wide, royalty-free rights, including derivative works, to enable the shop to present your work. (Excerpts, promotional images, different file formats etc).
That is standard, as long as it is to provide the expected service, namely to sell your work in their web shop.
That is why the correct version of such licenses typically include a phrasing to the effect of "for the purpose of providing and promoting the service".
What is not standard is "for any purpose". That is giving away your rights. And if you have used some licensed 3rd party material in your work, you are giving that away as well, which you most likely do not have the right to do.
As for the second: If you don't mean it, it doesn't belong in a legal document. End of story. It doesn't matter what reassurances you blog or tweet, or how nice people believe you are.
It irks me that people are being trained to accept this. The problem is that the correct version does indeed need a fairly complex wording, due to the nature of digital distribution. But that is being used as a smokescreen for an additional rights grab. People see the known litany, their eyes glaze over, and they go, "Oh, yeah, I've heard about that. It does need to look like that", without getting to the part which (does not) limit the use of those rights.
The only positive side I can see is that if everybody adopts this "for any purpose" language, it degenerates into absurdity, where everybody claim to have the right to use your work for anything as soon as it has been transferred through a cable. This is obviously not tenable, and may force a legal precedence that the limiting qualifier is implicit in all such licenses, no matter what the company writes.
But having to rely on an explicit contradiction of the actual words is ridiculous, and will likely take several legal cases to establish. I'd much prefer if companies just stopped claiming rights to everything.