Alongside the distaste of the bait-and-switch, I suggest that there's a perception among most folks that what is primarily being paid for is the content, not the services (hosting, transmission, recommendations, etc.). In that sense, paying for Netflix "feels" less bad because, in some sense, Netflix "owns" the content in its catalog for which you are buying access - whatever you may feel about the rights or wrongs of copyright law, it is undeniably a practical fact. By contrast, it feels less accurate (though is, in fact, still just as legally accurate) to say that YouTube "owns" the content uploaded to it - the content feels more personal, and YouTube is merely the conveyance mechanism. Part of the negative reaction might be due to this perception of being asked to pay for a support mechanism rather than for what you actually care about - the content.
> youtube [...], who directly profit shares with small creators you adore
Citation very much needed :P every report I've seen and insight I've heard is that anyone below the very top echelons earns negligible profit from their YouTube content. A commenter lower in the chain points out that "many of the YouTubers I watch have Patreons earning thousands of dollars", which...sort-of proves the point that YouTube, in isolation, is insufficient.
> youtube [...], who directly profit shares with small creators you adore
Citation very much needed :P every report I've seen and insight I've heard is that anyone below the very top echelons earns negligible profit from their YouTube content. A commenter lower in the chain points out that "many of the YouTubers I watch have Patreons earning thousands of dollars", which...sort-of proves the point that YouTube, in isolation, is insufficient.