[yorwba]

The article references two kinds of sources: arXiv posts, which get numbered footnotes; and posts on other websites, which get inline links. One of those links is allocated to some guy on Twitter making fun of unconfirmed levitation videos. There are no links to any of those videos.

Clearly, the author considers scientists publishing videos of their work less deserving of attention than making fun of those scientists. I think that reflects badly on their character, and badly on nature.com for hosting it.

(Also, an article published on 2023-08-04 should be able to refer to an arXiv post from 2023-08-03: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01516 even if they don't like citing videos.)