In principle, maybe. But realistically, even if we had a competitive and healthy video hosting market, the RIAA would still have a legal imperative to moderate those platforms. Although we don't perceive them in direct competition with YouTube, copyright takedowns still happen on TikTok, Twitter and Instagram. Platforms of a certain size become targets for IP holders, and platform-owners lack the time or accountability to deal with each claim on a case-by-case basis. It's less about finding a "someone" to tell-off copyright trolls, and more about paying enough lawyers to fight Sony & Friends when they make dubious claims.
It's a status-quo that sucks for us humans, but this is what intellectual property laws look like as-applied to real life. Art, video and even code are all obsessively licensed to prevent the accidental proliferation of good ideas.
I recorded a live performance of an orchestra in Barcelona at some cathedral. Some version of the song got copyright flagged. Really? Flagging live performances of (checks notes) a song composed in 1954?
Just bananas.
Someday hopefully the musical copyright folks on YouTube will share revenue with Visual Artists on there, too.
You can, this is called "incidental use" and is an exception to copyright in the USA. If you're filming yourself going down the street and someone starts playing a song, and you're not going out of your easy to capture the copyrighted content, it is legal.
YouTube's copyright strike system is more strict than the law, probably to kowtow to the music companies serving the YouTube Music product in exchange for not having to defend against a lawsuit.
If we weren't subject to their monopoly on online video, someone could just start telling copyright trolls to pound sand when a frivolous complaint comes up.