She could sell ads like everyone else. Calling it a "channel" and requiring a "subscription" is cheezy in my opinion. It isn't a "channel", it's a website behind a pay wall.
The cheezyness just takes away from her credibility, and her message is too valuable to be squandered like that. Just my opinion -- she can do whatever she wants. But I don't know what she is thinking.
“She could sell ads like everyone else. “
Like Netflex? Or perhaps like Freerepublic?
Funding by ad or paywall each have their advantages and disadvantages. How much is your time worth to you? How many minutes of advertising would you tolerate, before you used up $9.90 worth of your time? By doing without ads, she won’t be beholding to sponsors (except for her viewer-sponsors). It’s a certain bet that, if she used advertisers, leftist organizations would be organizing boycotts, to get the advertising pulled. There’s plenty of precedent.
The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the pudding. If her “channel” becomes financially sustainable behind a paywall, then that will prove the paywall works. If not — then you will be justified in posting a “told ya so”, when it shuts down.