As an APSC and full frame user, I find it amusing that APSC is always treated as the poor second cousin to full frame cameras in many forums (usual arguments - more noise, worse dynamic range, etc, while ignoring specific use cases), until the Canon marketing hype hits, then they're somehow like a whole new technology that has never been seen before, and everyone needs to have!
I certainly see the former. I don’t really see the latter, but that may be because I don’t follow YouTube reviewers. The situation you describe makes sense, though, when you consider that the vast majority of reviews are done for the purpose of earning money from affiliate links. When there’s a new product, it’s praises are sung loudly. In between new product launch periods, the more expensive products get more praise because they generate more unit revenue.
As for reality, it’s objectively true that FF can deliver better IQ than APS-C, and that FF offers more exposure flexibility. I think those (e.g., forum members) who have switched from APS-C to FF tend overstate the benefits, likely that’s confirmation bias at work.
Bias goes the other way, too. Those using only APS-C sometimes downplay the advantages of FF because they’ve chosen to use APS-C. Often the reason for that choice is lower system cost (body + lenses), and that’s a great reason to choose APS-C.
Those who use both FF and APS-C recognize that these are tools and that it’s good to use the right tool for the job at hand. If I need a small/light kit and/or am shooting outdoors in daylight, APS-C is a good choice. If I’m shooting moving subjects in a school gymnasium, a FF body and fast lenses are a good choice. I’m fortunate to have both options.