So basically the author cannot afford to buy all the content he would like to, but feels a pang of conscience when he has to take the content for free, even if it's made freely available by the authors.
It's an interesting internal conflict to have.
> I think I might need to figure out what my actual budget is for supporting independent creators on a monthly basis.
I suppose there are multiple solutions that provide something like that.
> I think it would be worse if they were as heavy-handed as Wikipedia
I'm totally fine with Wikipedia, and I usually give them $5-15 yearly. (They, in particular, are said to receive more money than they know what to reasonably do with.) This must be a case of personal sensitivity, which varies across the audience, and it sucks to be on the above-average sensitive end.
I personally buy stuff I find great / fascinating. I hear a great track or a great album on Bandcamp? OK, I pay for it. I see it on Youtube? I go to Bandcamp, or whatever other site the authors care to list, and pay there. If there's no such link, sad.
OTOH I don't normally subscribe to support a particular creator. I pay for the result. Great online creators usually produce good stuff anyway, they started with producing and publishing free (to view) stuff. The number of people who paid for a particular episode / track / post / whatever is an important piece of feedback, I think.