So you believe it’s okay to not pay the people you hire because Google doesn’t pay people who upload videos to Youtube?
Market share isn’t relevant here, if a company hires you to do something they pay you for your work. If they don’t recoup their costs from the work they hired you to do that’s a bad business decision on their part and not a valid reason to not pay you. This is why developed countries have employee rights laws.
Do you consider that a valid reason to hire people and not pay them? To me it just sounds like an excuse for a company to abuse a lack of employee rights to get free labour.
What you’re describing there is an etymological fallacy, a surprisingly literal one at that. By that logic the word “literal” should only refer to written text since it originated from the Latin word for letter, as in alphabet characters. Words’ meanings are defined by how they’re used, you’re complaining about how the word is being used, and you claim anyone using it doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. That is prescriptivism.
Why not? English is full of synonyms. It doesn’t matter whether you think it “makes sense”. Why waste the effort attacking word choice when you knew exactly what they were trying to communicate?
Linguistic prescriptivism is nonsense, you personally not liking how a word is used does not make that usage incorrect.
On an article about employees not getting paid someone commented with the excuse that they’re moving “more in line with youtube” where creators don’t get paid. Since you apparently disagree with the obvious meaning, how did you interpret that?