The modern "need" (mania) of defining metrics have a deep root not in knowledge but in ignorance. Smart people can reason autonomously like Galilean scientific models, ignorant can only follow Aristotelian model.
That's also the reason today we have substantial ZERO innovations and capacity to produce new things.
I think you have a poor understanding of what metrics mean, and in case it’s pretty ironic since Galileo essentially defined the modern scientific method of observation, experimentation, and mathematization which birthed quantitative assessment.
I think not. I think I have a clear understating on how we trade Science for neoaristotelism because someone want brainless, managerial-driven, commercial-servant research instead of Science and culture.
A small example: take a young CAD/CAE/CAM engineer, ask he/she to design something for doing a certain job. Ask the same to an ancient engineer. Compare results.
The young will give you a well simulated part/assembly ready for first prototype, the ancient normally gives you small note and a drawing. Prototype the two: the younger one is generally far more complex to being build, costly and far less effective than the ancient one. And it's not a matter of experience, it's a matter of different way of thinking.
Today we spent enormous time in bureaucracy with ridiculous stuff from ITIL/Kanban to the last bit, we spent enormous time in detailed reasoning being on contrary incapable of see the big picture. That's why for instance in shipping company when a (rare) EU doctor (we have less reformed medicine studies than the USA) went in the USA local seafarers they put themselves in the queue for being visited by "real" doctors.
Perhaps my poor English make hard for me to clearly express concepts, sorry. How to do your nails it's simply far less valuable than how a banks or a car work in knowledge terms, however on YT&c it get far more financial reward than a video on banking systems, mechanics etc.
I don’t think it’s has less value on a case by case basis, but this is also not relevant.
There is a big difference between education/enrichment and entertainment and while some content creators might walk the line between them there is a pretty big split.
I would say pre-defining what is “valuable” is probably not the best approach because it too prone to selection bias, an instruction video on how to do nails to a beautician is far more useful than a video explaining correspondenant banking systems.
That said the content as a whole can be measured in terms of its impact on cognitive and emotional state and well being especially on large sample sizes.
We already know that social media voyeurism causes a lot emotional distress, we know that certain types of content can make you “dumber” at least in the short term.
And on a larger scale we can check the social and individual benefits for specific cases, e.g. how many individuals who watched a specific subeset of content turned their life to the better in say a period of 5 years.
That's also the reason today we have substantial ZERO innovations and capacity to produce new things.