> YouTube's monetization and algorithms incentivized content to be bloated with fluff like long intros, outros, intermissions, shoutouts
I can watch YouTube on a television though.
And, just like a book, I can skip the parts I'm not interested in.
Are we at the point that research has become something that should be so effortless that even the tiniest annoyance is considered bad?
> so content creators cram in as much information as possible
> The same 2 minutes of content gets sped up and cut down to 30s
which is exactly the opposite of good information.
A lightning talk it's not information, it's an hint to something that should sparkle your interest, nobody actively search for lightning talks as a form of research.
At school I studied Roman history for ever, it's not like that Roman history is really that complicated (it is vast, it spans a very long time and there are many names and many battles, but still not complex stuff) it's that persistence of knowledge requires time, repetition and going into details.
You can cram Roman history in two paragraphs, but that's not information, that's trivia.
But mostly, good information requires reputation: you can't just take a 2 minute video crammed into 30 seconds chipmunk high pitch voice and call it "information". That's just someone talking about stuff, as far as the use knows, it could be 100% bullshit (and probably is).