The reason that hasn't happened yet is because whether or not you find YT an extraordinarily simple concept, the execution is tremendously difficult.
I'm not sure why you decided to interpret my comment in the least charitable way.
The fact that you can in fact execute (whatever you want to put in this) a YouTube alternative with a team of less than 100 is easily demonstrated by the fact that YouTube used to be this small at some point…
The cost per user to run most of those platforms is in the pennies range. Certainly under $4 / year / user.
Compare that to the cost of leaving our vulnerable minds - our parents and grandparents, or angry loners, etc - to the likes of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, who YouTube is weirdly obsessed with.
YouTube is a bit more expensive to run, sure... But the total cost is still a tiny fraction of the tax take, were we to fund a free and fair alternative ourselves.
Btw, expecting a fully viable alternative from a single person before you ever start exploring criticism or alternatives is wildly silly, imo.
Furthermore, in no way have I stated nor implied that I expect an alternative must be implemented by a single person. I think your least charitable interpretation of my comment is wildly silly.
Just to be very clear, those are not the only two possible options.
YouTube - and Facebook, Google, Whatsapp, etc - are extraordinarily simple concepts. We don't need private corporations running them for profit. In fact, it's turning out really bad for us.