Huh? Why would it be immoral? I'm producing free content myself, e.g. my open source repositories have permissive licenses like MIT, I run a blog, have put some of my music online, etc. Seriously, chances are almost 100% percent that you are massively benefiting right now from completely free of charge software that some guys developed for free in their spare time (perhaps even decades ago) - how immoral of you!
I'm not the parent and would not say it's immoral but being able to produce content for free is a form of privilege. Not everyone has that luxury. Let's face it we live in a time where engineers make an absurd amount of money for the services they provide.
What are these mental gymnastics? You're practically saying nobody is allowed to make money for their content because you don't. Where is the logic in this?
You misunderstood me entirely. People can sell their content for whatever price they like. For example, I sell my science fiction and fantasy novels although I could give them away for free. I also used to sell shareware in the past and plan to sell commercial, proprietary software in the future.
People can freely decide whether they want to sell the content they've created or give it away for free. If it's the former, they should sell it, and if it's the latter, they should give it away for free. They just cannot and ought not rely on business models that restrict how people display information on their devices that has been sent to them voluntarily. As I said in the beginning, I have no quirks with Youtube going subscription-only.
