Perhaps slightly hyperbolic… but the perception I had garnered from the content producers I’d seen talk about it, is that the 10 day counter notice period is long enough that the majority of content producers cannot take the risk with time relevant content or live streamed content.

In addition the percentage of people unwilling to risk the legal complications of defending a full fair use court fight, as it is an affirmative defence relying on courts with the USA as the jurisdiction is a widely chilling effect on overseas content producers. If they don’t back down you need to be prepared to deal with American courts and lawyers. Sure they back down some of the time but a lot of people don’t even want to risk it or aren’t even sure how firmly they are in fair use territory and that’s not even brining into the equation how many people misunderstand fair use exemptions and just how might right to reuse content under fair use they actually have and who may be inadvertently risking significant legal exposure should they try to press invalid fair use claims.

I did misspeak, but ContentID is still the bigger evil than the DMCA.

There is some truth to what you wrote, but instead of getting into the weeds on the details, I'd like to take a step back and remind you of something that you might have already considered: creators have a strong incentive to mislead you about this kind of thing. When people think the little guy is getting financially shafted by The Man, they are more likely to do things like sign up for that channel's Patreon page, or join their membership program.

I see a lot of this, including by very large channels who know what they are doing and should know better. And it seems to be an increasing trend. I don't like it.

The first time I became aware of YouTube tightening the screws on Content ID by YouTubers complaining about it was already in 2013 though, Patreon had barely been created by then (though some of its competitors like Flattr, were older).