I use these non cable/network platforms:
* https://dropout.tv <- comedy produced shows, hilarious
* https://curiositystream.com/ <- full to the brim with documentaries and educational content
* https://www.pbs.org/explore/ <- it's PBS, but online!
* https://www.britbox.com/us/ <- British TV shows! So many good ones...
And then there are the obvious platforms that aren't YT:
* HBO Max
* Peacock
* Netflix
* Paramount+
* Hulu
* Amazon Prime Video
* Apple TV+
So no, I don't really agree that YouTube has a monopoly. Too many alternatives that kick ass!
And we shouldn't forget, rando users can upload whatever for sharing, which none of your alternatives do. Kind of the core idea there.
And I would disagree re: content isn't fungible. Nothing on YouTube is both necessary to specifically consume and entirely unavailable elsewhere. It's entertainment, and whatever "category" of entertainment you prefer, you can find content not on YouTube for that thing.
"Random users uploading content" has not been the primary use case of YouTube for many years now. It's mostly run by content creators now, with entire companies dedicated to creating content, just the same as the platforms I've listed.
None of those are YouTube alternatives. They are not even remotely similar. You haven't got a clue what YouTube is about.
Here's a list of YouTube alternatives:
* Rumble
* Odysee
* Vimeo
* Twitch
* BitChute
But the alternatives are niche platforms with nowhere near the level of content that YouTube provides.
Before they had the total monopoly, they had very few ads. Now they have the monopoly, so they are extorting us because of it