>
If you build a house of straw because you're not technically savvy to build it out of brick doesn't mean you get to complain that the wind blew it down even if it was a big bad wolf.Let's apply this reasoning to a few other examples. Let's say you live in the jungle, and build your house to jungle building codes. Then, a logging company comes in and dismantles your furniture to make particle board for IKEA products. One could argue that if you were more competent, you'd be able to form a well-armed militia, build land vehicles and air craft, and defend your jungle home against the invaders, who are not infinitely powerful and could be dissuaded by even a reasonably well-run guerilla uprising. One might also argue that that's crazy. ;)
To put it another way, if being a guerilla fighter is the only way to have furniture in the jungle, we wouldn't expect everyone to become guerilla fighters, we'd expect a few people to become guerillas while most people lost their furniture.
Here's another example. Let's say you're a US citizen concerned about civil asset forfeiture. If you were more competent, you would smuggle your wallet across the states where that happens inside of your hubcaps, or maybe in a drone, or perhaps in a shallow-water submarine. On the other hand, it's a bit might-makes-right to assert that only people who can assemble smuggling vehicles have property rights. Again, if that was the way to have property rights, we'd expect a few people to become smugglers and almost everyone else to lose property.
So finally coming back around to the YouTube thing, if we say that the way to have a platform is to build servers, organize communications networks, and arrange payments outside of the usual system, then we would expect a few people, almost all of them criminals, to do that, while most people simply would lose their platform.