This is why large monitors are so expensive, because they aren't subsidized by the ads large TVs force upon their users for the most basic usage. But if you can afford it, there are 40+" 4k and 8k monitors to which you can plug AppleTV/Chromecast/a small PC with a budget discrete graphics card. Or you can get a conference projector if no monitor on the market meets your size needs.
> because they aren't subsidized by the ads That's a myth, even if subsidies do exist. Monitors were always more expensive than similar size TVs because they have better specs, more features, and longer warranty. Linus Tech Tips on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWH1zXmFgl8 1997 Baltimore Sun article about this: https://archive.ph/mhxET
However, the video you linked doesn't really address the advertisement subsidy point at all (I searched the transcript for any references to make sure), so it isn't really an argument that the ad-subsidy is a myth. Plenty of reporting and discussion and evidence that traditional TV advertising industry (untargeted cable/broadcast ads) is declining in revenue, but the overall TV ad industry revenue is growing (share taken up by smart TV and streaming service ads) is going up. Streaming services absolutely use platform data where they can access it (ie smart TVs). A 1997 article sounds like it would have no context whatsoever about the 2020 smart TV advertising landscape (very very different from traditional TV advertising).
Ad revshare is just so lucrative, especially for ~$0 cost/unit for the manufacturer that it pays for every smart feature and onboard computer and then some. The difference in cost for net-comparable features is still apparent — the cheapest monitor at size-resolution combo X with worst refresh rate/response time/color accuracy is still more expensive than the cheapest smart TV at X (roughly comparable features).