I don't think that would hold up in any court in the world. While sober, and in coordination with legal counsel, they made a plan to accept the terms and conditions. That's like a kid swinging their arms around on a playground while saying "I'm not touching you" levels.

I personally would not trust legal advice from YouTubers who make money from whatever "content" generates the most views. The more outrageous and controversial the better, making sense or being true a distant secondary priority. Even those who make a name for themselves as trustworthy tend to eventually succomb to the incentives of the algorithm if it's their day job.

I assume that part was for entertainment, this wouldn't fly in court. But they also show the dark patterns used to make you consent to it, and how certain features seem unaffected by these choices or send one last request when revoking consent.