There are two types of performances: public and private. A public performance is like a busker in the street. They get a huge audience, but they can't force anyone to pay. A private performance is within a private premises. You can make people pay, but you can't guarantee anyone actually will.

Anyone can perform in public, including you and me. But you kinda need to already be Taylor Swift or whatever to perform in private.

Private platforms are aplenty. When you go to the cinema you know what you're paying for is from a proven studio or director or at the very least has been reviewed by critics.

There are private platforms online too, like Netflix and the New York Times.

But YouTube is public. It attracts a vast amount of authors by making itself public. It simply would not have all that content if it were private.

So here's the problem: I will not have ads, but I also will not pay for the public square. YouTube wants to have it's cake and eat it too. It needs to be public to attract the authors (the only people providing value). But it also wants to gouge anyone just wandering through. You can't have both.

If authors of known quality started to make private videos on YouTube then I would absolutely consider buying them. However, I won't "subscribe" and continue to pay for the service as I want to own those videos and can store them myself and play them with free software.

But there is a notable reluctance to go private. Why? Perhaps because ads made Google as rich as it is today..? They don't want you to pay for anything, they went you to see ads. That's the proven business model. I won't see ads.