From an outsider's perspective, it comes down to a value proposition, too.

It's common knowledge that YouTube charges several fees on creators, and is subject to all the restrictions of its comptrollers, so, it isn't just the company, Google, that is censoring access to information and free speech, but the comptrollers of Google, who truly benefit the most. As the gatekeepers, charging fees for access is what leads to these Walled Gardens - and most of them stopped being developed intuitively, a long time ago.

Spotify is no better. They take a huge chunk from the artists whose music gets streamed on their platform. I get that people think that streams are equivalent to the time, energy, and effort that the artist or creator puts into production, except it's not. There's a total disconnect between what artists and creators should be getting - and what they're actually taking home.

Media has always been gate-kept by whichever special interests dominate the space. I have to have an ad-blocker installed in my web browser, because 99% of the current version/iteration of the web is...bad. So many infestations with ads, and it ruins the UX at the end of the day.

Being able to control the distribution, by using RSS seems almost too easy, or perhaps that's because the old model of business involved charging radio stations $ to lease out the records, to play. I don't think radio stations purchased every single "song" that they broadcast, just like how most of radio is now digital playlist-driven, not 100% human decision-making.