I think the wellbeing play is more about preventing dislike-bombing than about protecting creator egos. Dislike-bombing is coordinated mass action against a video or creator, not by the usual audience of that creator, but by herds of non-watchers seeking to shame the creator publicly via a bad dislike count. That sort of stampede-like behavior doesn't seem like a healthy community dynamic.
It sounds reasonable to imagine that dislike-bomb participants will lose the public shaming motivation if the dislike count is no longer visible; they also will lose the ability to practically organize eg by setting up goals ("10k dislikes and I'll give away xyz").
Creators still retain dislikes as a signal of quality from their audience. Viewers lose dislike count but it's also already taken into account into the recommendation algorithms that drive most consumption on YouTube so maybe not a whole lot is lost; besides in the only place where dislike count is shown, comments are already visible (and those may be negative too).
It sounds reasonable to imagine that dislike-bomb participants will lose the public shaming motivation if the dislike count is no longer visible; they also will lose the ability to practically organize eg by setting up goals ("10k dislikes and I'll give away xyz").
Creators still retain dislikes as a signal of quality from their audience. Viewers lose dislike count but it's also already taken into account into the recommendation algorithms that drive most consumption on YouTube so maybe not a whole lot is lost; besides in the only place where dislike count is shown, comments are already visible (and those may be negative too).