That 3He is a good fuel for nuclear fusion is a misnomer perpetuated by people desperately scrambling for rationale for having permanent human presence on the Moon. In fact, even if we could achieve sustained fusion conditions with deuterium and tritium (D-T fusion), D-3He fusion has requirements that are approximately two orders of magnitude more difficult with a corresponding inverse in power density, and prohibitive parasitic (Bremsstrahlung) losses at the minimum plasma confinement conditions for fusion. The supposed benefit of D-3He fusion is that it is aneutronic—that is, that it does not produce neutrons the way D-D and D-T fusion does—and provides charged particles from which momentum is readily converted into electrical power, but the problem with that is that at the necessary conditions for D-3He fusion, a significant amount of D-D fusion will occurs, which is is a low yielding reaction that does produce energetic ‘fast’ neutrons about 50% of reactions.
The sum total is that D-3He reactions for sustained nuclear fusion power generation is not really viable—certainly not by any methods currently being developed—and even if it were, it would be vastly more cost effective to breed 3He on Earth by producing tritium and letting it decay rather than sifting through hundreds of tons or Lunar regolith per gram of 3He that is hypothetically recoverable. We might as well go to Venus to collect carbon dioxide, or Titan for some hydrocarbon snow.
As for the question of the o.p.:
The reason that “rich people and corporations” having gone back to the Moon is because there is not, in fact, a lot of money to be made from live streaming or anything else. The entire reason the United States went to the Moon was in the desperate zeal to demonstrate superior technical prowess vice the ideological opponent in the “Space Race” that the US was vastly behind in by the time we even realized there was a competition. That was a decision, hastily made by John Kennedy and announced at Rice University in September 1962 and that Kennedy immediately regretted when he was informed of the scope and cost of the effort and risk of failing to meet his goal. To achieve that goal the US spent an extraordinary amount of money: US$25.8B between 1960 and 1973 (parts of what became Apollo were actually started before Kennedy made it a national commitment), which adjusted for inflation is about US$257B in FY2020 dollars (The Planetary Society estimate).
Although the Apollo program and associated Ranger and Surveyor uncrewed program yielded a wealth of scientific information about the formation of the Earth/Moon system and inspired a lot of people, it was never particularly popular with the US public which never offered more than 50% approval for the program. The later J-class extended missions were being curtailed even before the Apollo 11 landing, and even the extended program utilizing surplus hardware didn’t go beyond three Skylab missions and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. The missions after Apollo 13 weren’t even televised live except for a few minutes of specific activities due to a combination of public disinterest and concerns about another significant failure occurring during live airing, which is probably a good thing because some of the astronaut-to-ground-control conversations became pretty spicy (and actually make for interesting reading).
Although there are certainly mineral resources on the surface of the Moon, and ice water deposits in permanently shaded craters at the poles, there is nothing that is worth the extraordinary cost of sending people and equipment to the Moon, much less the difficulty of extracting it and somehow returning it intact to Earth. Gerald K. O’Neill postulated having lunar mining colonies to extract structural materials and consumables that would be delivered via mass driver to construct large permanent habitats at the Earth-Moon Lagrange points of neutral gravitational stability or to orbiting solar power satellites that would collect sunlight and beam power down to antennas on Earth through the microwave-frequency “atmospheric windows” but even a cursory analysis shows that this would be unfavorable compared to just collecting solar energy at Earth’s surface even with the spectral losses.
There is also the issue of habitability; aside from the difficulty of constructing habitats (which would have to be dug into the regolith or located in the large lava tubes found at various locations) there is the fine electrostatically-charged Lunar dust that sticks to everything and would pose both a health and tribological hazard to anything transiting outside (it was tracked into to the Lunar Modules by astronauts despite all attempts to vacuum it out and nearly made at least one Lunar Roving Vehicle inoperable in just a few hours of use), the radiation environment on the unprotected surface, the fact that the surface of the Moon is in shadow for two weeks out of four (making solar power problematic), and the fractional lunar gravity that would almost certainly have detrimental physiological effects on long term inhabitants.
Of course, other nations have gone to the Moon; the Soviet Union sent probes and even a sample return mission despite having ‘lost’ the race to put humans on the Lunar surface. India has since attempted a probe (crashed) and China a sample return mission (success), both sensibly using uncrewed missions rather than the extraordinary expense of sending delicate human beings and trying to keep them alive in conditions far more hostile than the worst on Earth outside of an active volcano. This is not to say that there is not some role of humans in space exploration, but the more sensible route would be to first establish an infrastructure for essential materials and consumables, and the ability to build terrestrial-like habitats in orbital space via autonomous systems first, and then send people to live in space for extended durations later rather than hauling every single consumable and construction material up from the surface of the Earth at prohibitive cost. Despite advances in some areas of technology, chemical rocket propulsion technology has only seen very marginal advances and has fundamental limitations that are not likely to be exceeded by further development in the foreseeable future.
As for the Moon (or Mars) there is really little reason to send people there, and certainly not for profit or “nationalistic pride”. Nor do they really make suitable ‘backup worlds’ as some people advocate or are ever likely to sustain self-supporting colonies. A permanent human habitation in space would almost certainly be in solar-orbiting habitats constructed of space-based resources (water, silicates, materials derived from carbonaceous chondrites, iron and nickel, et cetera), capable of producing terrestrial-like conditions via centrifugal rotation, and powered and kept in thermodynamic equilibrium by constant sunlight and controlled solar shading. The worthwhile science to be done on the Moon (and again, Mars and other planetary-like bodies) is best done mostly or exclusively by probes and landers controlled by human scientists and technicians without having to cope with bulky, constraining, and obstructive pressure and environment suits that provide very restricted vision and mobility with essentially no tactile sense.
Stranger
