> I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials.

Firstly, it's not up to Google. Secondly, how would that even work?

> Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube.

Yes, there would. YouTube isn't the solution to a technical problem.

> We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system

Why?

That's also a pretty big "only".

> The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth

No, it doesn't. What it reduces is bitmiles. Which may or may not be significant. Mostly not, but it may have some significant if we can lower the usage of some scarce and expensive radio bearer.

> Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location.

Not really. You are still going to need that infrastucture, so no cost savings.

> indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.

So we do, but using IPFS isn't going to result in us getting a check in the mail. Costs are still zero and savings likewise.