Tweet
I don't know if you know who John Carpenter is, he made a lot of horror movies like The Thing. His first film was actually a comedy, called Dark Star, about a ship on a long term mission to go around blowing up unstable planets so their star systems can be colonized. It was his student project at UCLA Film School. It has a hilarious Phenomenology scene that you would definitely appreciate. The film was written by and stars Dan O'Bannon, who then went on to write the script for the 1979 Lovecraftian movie Alien. I highly recommend it (I own the DVD).
I think videos can be useful - like showing you how to change the battery in your car key fob - but when they are someone, especially someone without conventional credentials, just making statements (with or without fancy graphics) I don't tend to take them very seriously. The whole thing could just be made up, or contain misinterpreted summaries of other sources, or be accurate in some parts and wrong in others. No science publishing editor or peer review board or history department is reviewing these things for accuracy. Anybody can say anything and throw it out there for free on youtube. Books and academic journals are both more expensive and more reviewed by others prior to publication and much less likely to contain nonsense than some rando in a video.
The only thing I would watch youtube for in terms of "data dumps" is very unimportant stuff like Warhammer 40K lore or the like, or videos from established institutions like the BBC or PBS.
This is a major problem due to the invention of the internet. Before that, "freedom of the press is for those who own one" as the saying goes. Individual speech might be heard in a bar or something but there was no practical way for an individual to spread (mis)information to a mass audience. Now it is possible, and even profitable, thanks to youtube, to make a presentation for no cost and distribute it to, potentially, the whole world, who can watch it at no cost. The same goes for Facebook and Twitter etc. This has created a new problem, as previously, it took resources (especially money) to even try to reach a mass audience, and that meant the people doing it had a vested interest in the accuracy of the content - if it was wrong it could damage the reputation of a publisher or newspaper, or could result in lawsuits.
I have seen several attempts at "totally free speech" environments - ranging from gaming forums to things like 4Chan - and inevitably they are overrun with garbage, insults, racism, sexism, trolls, illegal content, hate speech etc. Reasonable people leave such environments once the downward spiral begins, leaving only those who actually like to wallow in the mud of such content. Free speech is a nice idea but it's kind of like saying anyone is allowed to come into your home. It won't be long before the theory proves more attractive than the reality. Historically in places like bars that are open to the public to hang out and talk, disruptive customers won't be tolerated and will be removed by force; also, false statements made will not be heard by anyone not physically in the room.
The concept of free speech is very much pre-internet. We are in the midst of a giant social experiment to see if it really is a good idea with cheap mass communication. In my experience it is not, I do not stay on forums where "anything goes" and prefer some moderation, even if it is a little less "free." (Freedom from having to wade through garbage content to get to content you want is a new and important freedom in my opinion.)
s t e p h e r s
Comment