Regulations have been waay too lose on, especially, american ISPs where I understand they are allowed to not only refuse you a public routable IP but also dictate what kind of traffic you're allowed to send and receive (for example, whether the traffic flowing is of "commercial" character and therefore should be on on a different subscription), this insanity should be illegal. Internet is a utility, and everyone should have the right to the same type of access, regardless of their need (those who do not need/want, can simply chose not to use it, but ISPs should not be allowed to differentiate).
I've hosted my own web, and other servers on my own hardware since I was 13 years old, when I bought my first domain, I had to use a fax machine for the first time in my life, and fax my request form, along with my passport, to the agency responsible for the top level domain of my country. It was kind of convoluted back then, but everyone were helpful, and it was not that difficult, the technology was well understood, supporters were competent, and it was expected that people were going to use the internet for internet things. Today is my 39th birthday, and while the server hosting my stuff is mostly still located 3 meters from me, the path to having it online has nothing but degenerated, it's an uphill battle just to be on the internet these days.. The mail stuff is the easier part (dkim, dmarc, spf, certificates).. But the simple act of getting your f..king computer connected to the f..king internet like it was 1999, that's the real hassle.. ISP NAT, supporters beyond incompetent, blocked ports, missing (or unknown) relay hosts.. It's a joke.
If you have a domain and your own site, even hosted on a colocated rack or in the cloud, you're already miles ahead of those that don't. And if you have a domain and can manage DNS records, then in the future that doesn't preclude you from "graduating" to your own hardware, if you so desire. The goal here is more or less self-sufficiency with web properties rather than a pure interpretation of "rent" vs. "own." Because at some point you have to rent something from someone (say, you're not running your own domain registry and registrar).
If only companies have the right to participate on the internet, they are empowered even more to chose who should be allowed to even run a website.. It's a slippery slope that ends up in a very bad place, participation wise. It becomes like the airline industry, where the companies pushing hardest for more regulation and red-tape are the oldest, those who made their fortunes back when it was easier and cheaper, and who now use their enourmous wealth to make it harder for new players to enter their market.
It's the same everywhere, when you start allowing power to concentrate.
(Which of course assumes that there are laws in place against lock-in, just like there are already laws in place against lock-in for your pick of ISPs and obligations for mobile carriers to transfer your phone number to another carrier.)
Youtube can demonetize or delete a channel and the creator is more or less fucked. They can find another platform, but they need to build their audience almost from scratch.
By contrast, if my VPS provider kicks me out, I just clone it or restore from backup to any one of the thousands of competing providers, change a few DNS records and my audience (not that I have one) wouldn't even know that anything changed.
Servers and domain names are transferable and neutral, platforms and usernames aren't.
Thing is, that edge infrastructure has been there from the beginning of broadband and is only recently beginning to slip away, with the advent of ISP NAT, agressive IP rotations, blocking of ports and not providing public IPs at all.
You can easily replace a VPS provider with a different provider that will give you exactly the same service. You can't replace Facebook with a different Facebook.