Don't question authority. Trust Google. Trust Facebook. We'll make the decisions about your personal property in a way that benefits the "vast majority of people" who own stock in our company.
They have set the terms under which she can have them publish her data. She doesn't like them. She has the choice to walk away.
Google isn't obligated to meet her on arbitrarily chosen terms, so I don't really see the problem here.
I think the point she's articulating here is that she isn't a "typical" musician making profit from her music. She has hacked out a way to make money from her music that satisfies her fans and doesn't grate upon her own concious. Google has been a big part of that and now they are changing, perhaps for the better for most. But the change is unilateral and creates a personal problem for her.
Afterall, in the end she asks if anyone is starting a new streaming service, therefor leaving the implication that she is open to switch despite monetary detriment any such switch might cause.
Writing a synopsis from her perspective, I would sum up the article as, "Hey Google, I came here in the first place to circumvent the rigid and singular nature of doing business in the music industry "proper" and now you guys are injecting the same kind of problems into your own system. I have a hard time abiding that and I don't know what to do."
That's the consequence of choosing to rely on the services of others. You are at their mercy. If you don't like it, well, there's always YCombinator.
That is not an accurate description of the situation. Her music will still be published on YouTube if she doesn't accept their terms and walks away. She will have to take action (endless DMCA requests) if she wants to try to have her data not published on YouTube.
The terms they are offering are not the terms to have her data published on YouTube. They are the terms to get a cut of the money Google makes from her data on YouTube.
What you are describing is how Apple or Amazon work--if an artist walks away from their deals, their content is not on that service.
I'm not sure this would even stop her from getting ad revenue from videos that she uploads herself (the article doesn't discuss this). ContentID accounts are about getting revenue from things other people upload that include your content.
If you don't want to use the services offered on the terms offered, that's your choice. If you don't want other people to use those services with bits that have "your" color on them, then you're up shit creek, because you shouldn't have let other people have them.