The problem here is that “harm” is subjective and YTs customers (advertisers) are not the same as their users (viewers), who are also different from their content creators.
I’m not defending YT here. Just explaining how it’s gotten to the place it is.
Content creators are working with YT for distribution of content in return for a cut of ad revenue, so it's more than an account on an internet platform like a forum, it's a business relationship, which would make them a client or vendor.
I don’t think you can equate it to a business relationship because those same relationships in broadcasting looks totally different (disclaimer: I used to work in broadcasting).
Content creators need to wise up that they’re not part of the business relationship in YTs business model. The fact they get paid at all is a by product.
I think the relationship between YT and creators is more akin to an event venue, definitely nothing like broadcasting. In venues, the relationship is symbiotic, without artists there would be no events, without venues, artists would have no where to host a large audience. YT similarly does not have an audience without it's creators, and so it requires their work.
YT is of course a mixed bag, since there are lots of accounts that treat it more like a video hosting platform. But for those making it their business to make YouTube videos, it's definitely a commercial relationship.
Sure, but we have national laws, regulations, and cultural norms that specify harms and YouTube just shrugs their shoulders and says "we don't care".
Content creators benefit from YouTubes business model but they are neither YTs customers, employers nor even their intended users (ie the people watching the ads).
This is where the problem lies. Content creators are effectively just an expense. And it’s compounded by the fact that if one creator leaves there are plenty of others with big aspersions. So creators are an expense that’s easy to replace.