Funding "Public art" is kind of an already solved problem, and has been for years. A small number of people, possibly even one individual, a patron, funds an artist. They then live off that funding and release their art to the public. They don't need to be funded by everyone who enjoys their art, and if you tried to force everyone to pay before they can enjoy the art, you would be unsuccessful.
Even with ad-blockers, this system works. Google is the patron for many full-time youtubers, and a small number of people (those who don't block ads) make this possible. This is, however, a great time to launch a competing product that promises to strips ads.
These patrons aren't just throwing money away either, they get something out of it, whether that be market share, a personal musician to call upon when hosting parties, or personal satisfaction. It's been a mutually beneficial system that has been working for a thousand years.
Helping people send money directly to artists is fine, but it isn't necessary. Taking control away from big companies (and funneling that profit towards yourself) is arguably laudable, because you're a "good person" and those big corporations are "bad people", but it isn't necessary.
The common person might like the "all the videos across all the platforms in one app!" feature, but the common person also doesn't know what "open source" is, so it's being marketed to two different, often exclusive, demographics, which inevitably ends with losing a good portion of both.
tl;dr, I don't see this taking off.
edit: it seems my signature has expired.
edit2: futo sounds like another naughty word.