@DWOLFBTC

TLDR: publishing "new" content (that repeats known/documented stuff) over and over again is necessary, if you want people to see your topic

In a way I want to agree with you, that the info is already out there in millions of texts/videos/podcasts .. so it wouldn't be absolutely necessary to regurgitate it all perpetually, just adding more redundancy.

The internet is a vast pool of content which people COULD sift through when they're looking for answers to questions about the world, trying to understand.

I guess the problem is: not that many people are actively thinking: "The monetary systems seem broken, I should go read up on the internet for hours to see if someone already found a decent solution."

Many people (including me most of the time) are mostly just consuming content (without an adhoc goal behind the consumption, other than seeing something new) that passes by in timelines/feeds/streams, be it news sites, or social media or public TV/radio.

Those timelines/feeds/streams almost always put "new" content as the next item to consume (instead of mixing in random old content to give it another chance at resonating). This design of feeds basically forces people who want to direct attention to a specific topic, to always fight for a share of the current timelines by continuously churning out "new" content about their topic.

If you want to increase exposure of the public to a certain topic, it helps to put the topic where people will scroll past it, over and over again.

As an aside: I think your typical chronological timeline/feed/stream - as obvious as it may seem - is a fundamentally flawed principle. In an abstract way it means "New is everything that matters, nothing else does."

I think alternative feed compositions would be much more interesting. For example if the (mostly) chronological feed also showed random old content, the share of it being some inverse function of content age.