the farm products when used once are used up, videos, texts, "content" can be reused theoretically infinitely.

furthermore you paid for the right to work the land what the landowner asked, nobody pays a minimum rate to have a YouTube channel that I am aware of.

I understand it is a rhetorically powerful phrase, digital sharecropper, but unfortunately as often happens with analogies it falls apart with all the ways it does not fit.

>the farm products when used once are used up, videos, texts, "content" can be reused theoretically infinitely.

How is this a useful distinction? It's about how you can sell the product, but doesn't change the fact that you don't own your lot, that you pay a percentage share to the owner of the place, that they can change the terms or even crush you anytime they like, and so on.

>furthermore you paid for the right to work the land what the landowner asked, nobody pays a minimum rate to have a YouTube channel that I am aware of.

What you paid to the landowner was a percentage of your lot's production, same as with YouTube.

So if people insist YouTube does not employ the creators of the products that make them money, then at best YouTube is their land lords. I don’t know if that is any better, particularly if this land lord is not asking for rent, but rather, is asking their creators to work for them.

No, this is an even further stretch.