You can't produce value around content without artificial scarcity. In this case, Google/YT centralizes distribution and access, so that in order to consume content you must pay a fee (watch ads, provide personality data, etc.)
This has both good and bad sides to it. On the good side, it means people can make money as YouTube creators. This subsidizes the enormous volume of content that makes the creators no money.
On the bad side, you have a SPOF, and those failure modes can be many and varied. In this case its unwarranted age restrictions, but more usually its fraudulent DMCA take downs, various algorithmic shenanigans, and of course censorship (which can be good or bad, actually).
But you can't have one property (value producing artificial scarcity) without the other (a central point of failure).
The real question is: can content creators host their own content such that they can derive value from it? Will users consume that content, and pay for it, somehow? Theoretically it's possible, but the technical barriers are quite high. YT has capitalized on massive economies of scale to reduce the technical barriers to hosting and monetizing content to zero. This same pattern is repeated again and again: connect computer to the internet, then specialize that computer's software to do one thing really well, attract users/makers, use your control of the platform to extract value from users (inject ads, membership fees, data brokers, etc), profit. The hope is that the value to society outweighs the cost, and honestly I think that's actually the case! I just hope more people get clear-eyed about the trade-offs for-profit internet services make to be viable.