If a farmer stops showing up to a farmers market, no one is going to go to their farm for their specific carrots when there are other carrot farmers at the market. Even if they have the best carrots, that doesn't mean their carrots are sufficiently better to justify the added hassle. If their livelihood comes from the customers at the farmer's market, they need to keep their stall at the market.
Sure. This aligns with my original point. A farmer owns their land (mostly). The farm is the farmer's canonical source for their product.
Farmers don't typically rely on a single farmer's market to sell their product, they participate in many markets, sell wholesale, sell from their farm, and might also have a direct-to-consumer option where they can ship beyond their locality.
Create once, publish everywhere — your land is the canonical source. Markets are for distribution.
A business doesn’t stop being viable only once every source of income is stamped out. It stops being viable when enough of it is gone, because people weigh continuing the business against the opportunity cost of doing anything else.
Also, many creators already are publishing “everywhere”. YouTube is simply the most profitable. If YouTube income goes away, that ends the business, whether or not it can technically be found elsewhere.
No, it goes directly against your original point. A farmer owning their own land is no protection against losing access to its customers.
In this analogy, there is only one farmer's market that anyone shows up to. In the real world many farmers may have alternatives, but that is a product of an entire industry spending centuries collectively cultivating those multiple distribution channels.
