Surely the revenue from a patreon subscriber is also more than 100x that of a viewer, right?

Yes, let's endorse a system where 1 sucker pays and 100 others ride for free..

C'mon

It's literally a system of patronage, so yes. That's what the patrons sign up for.

also essentially how many large news organizations have pivoted. $520/year for WSJ, $400/year for Bloomberg (excluding terminal-only news and other extras, of course), $390/year for NYT, $120/year for WaPo (with exclusions). For only $2,500 or so a year, you can have a balanced stream of news and journalism. -But not your household; you need to pay extra for family plans.

(or you can do what most people do)

I do subscribe to Nebula, where most (albeit not “all”) of the YouTube creators I follow can be found. I donate to Patreon for folks like Benn Jordan, whom I feel does work that’s important and beneficial for society. For all the rest, including streaming/broadcast/cable stations owned by Paramount, Disney, and precious few others at this point? To hell with them. I take the money I saved from unsubscribing to their flawed and exploitative platforms, and I donate it to a handful of organizations like Wikipedia, EFF, and Archive.org. During the Hollywood writer’s strike, I donated $5/month to charitable orgs recommended by their union. I see live music several times a year. I purchase music from Bandcamp. There are lots of ways to support artists and creative professionals that don’t involve funding their exploitation, it’s just not as tidy or simple.

Good for you, these comments always get up votes, largely from the other 99% of people riding on the generosity of your contributions.

It feels good, but comments like yours need to be meaningless and repetitive, not celebrated because it gives freeloaders a sense of contributing.