I was unimpressed by the arguments in the article.
Focus implies that Alphabet cannot avoid being over controlling (why? Any evidence other than idle speculation?) whereas devotion to increasing quarterly shareholder value would somehow be hands off (LOL has the author ever worked for a megacorporation?), or eventually being bought out by a (probably overcontrolling) competitor (Disney? Netflix?) would by some miracle be less overcontrolling than Alphabet currently is. With a side dish of the assumption that Youtube would be better off with less control and oversight. Why is that?
The second argument is also weak. The claim is there are two ways to being ad sales in-house at Youtube (they... aren't already?) one is paying financial market middlemen billions to do a corporate split such that there will only (temporarily?) be in house sales dept, the other option is a cheap, probably money saving, departmental re-org. "We can save money by making a giant pile of cash and lighting it on fire". Naah, not taking the bait, doesn't sound profitable.
The third argument is the author is some kind of insider and our toothless and ineffective unelected regulators hate google more than they hate facebook (solely because he claims it to be the case), so splitting from google would reduce government regulation. I mean, we're just making stuff up at this point, aren't we?
The forth, unnumbered, argument is a restatement of the first argument, that Alphabet is inherently and uncontrollably hypercontrolling so "freeing" Alphabet from hypercontrolling responsibilities WRT youtube would allow better micromanagement of various AI projects. Now wait a minute, the first argument was Alphabet's theoretical control issues are "bad" therefore YT should leave, why is the forth argument that toxic management is somehow good when its applied to new AI divisions? I have a better idea, if the author repeatedly restates that Alphabet management is incompetent and detrimental to everything it touches, why let it ruin AI along with ruining Youtube, why not push to implement better leadership at Alphabet so all the orgs underneath Alphabet would benefit? I'm just saying if the repeated theme of the article is Alphabet is a "rats deserting the sinking ship" argument, well... why not fix the ship so its not sinking instead of coming up with elaborate and expensive evacuation processes? If Alphabet management is toxic therefore YT should leave to avoid it, then a couple paragraphs later claiming Alphabet management is toxic therefore they need to manage AI even harder, doesn't make sense.