I don't think the article wants to belittle their work. The format isn't wrong, but the way the content is structured is troubling; it is to cater to the algorithm by tapping into the parts of our brain that are not meant to be stimulated all the time.

Any form of media isn't bad as long as it's analytical, i.e., one that forces you not just to be an observer all the time. Most content on such platforms is designed to keep your brain constantly stimulated so you never shift your attention to think. The stimulation and the dopamine hits just keep you hooked to it. They give little time for contemplation, encouraging passive consumption.

When consuming long‑form content in any format, you get bored or drift just enough to think your own thoughts as you consume. But when consuming short‑form content, you are forced not to think unless you choose to pause; if you get distracted, you might think you missed something, which you don't want to do.

Information‑dense content is not good in any way, whether academic or entertainment. It doesn't leave you with any time to think on your own, discuss with yourself or the creator, dismiss some faulty thoughts, and eventually form an opinion of your own that you want to discuss with someone, somewhere.

That being said, not everything has to be long form content. Short content can provide concise information where needed, also serve as a gateway to deeper exploration, if the viewer follows up. I am not sure how that can be encouraged as most do not choose to do, as they are drowned with it and never get time to explore deeper into topics they want to.