> YouTube is not offering anything worth paying

That's for you to decide, and if you (and the other tens of people that think the same) end up leaving the platform that would reduce YouTube's costs, which makes sense for them.

Your argument is basically the same people use for piracy. If you don't want to pay for Photoshop, don't use it. If you don't want to pay for YouTube, don't.

This doesn't work for Photoshop. As using pirated Photoshop doesn't change anything for adobe, but using YouTube without ads costs google money.

I'm confused at this argument, you're saying that since it's easy to steal the content we should assume it's youtube's fault for trying to charge for it?

I imagine most things that people pay money for they'd prefer to get for free, but that's not an actual option on the table.

YouTube provides a service you can either pay for with money or attention, and sure if people don't think it's a worth while expenditure of either then by all means they shouldn't watch it.

Why are you assuming YouTube should provide their service for no compensation?

They aren't coercing anyone. They're offering a service with a service agreement. It's as much coercion as my ISP saying they won't give me internet access if I don't pay.

Both outcomes of "pay and we'll give you access" and "I won't pay and I won't get access" are reasonable outcomes in a free society.