Is it me or is this article so poorly written that the main point of the article -- where the thing is -- is not even described coherently?
As noted below, Scott Manley does a much better job covering it. YouTube is a much more efficient tool for connecting the knowledgeable and passionate with the interested learner. If anything the "imprimatur" granted by legacy media brand names gets in the way on topics where the public is generally badly informed, or where there is a lot of false knowledge floating around the culture.
The downside, is that knowledge has to compete with falsehood, so the complete elimination of falsehood is problematic, and it may take some time for the real knowledge to rise. I think it's better overall, more democratic and pro-freedom, if people participate by making their own choices to find the truth.