I am not going to argue with you on this. I gave a video to further discussion, not be a nice guy. It was polite of me to give a source, I do not need to explain the source when the source openly explains it themselves. This argument is stupid.
Most of us are here to read and discuss.
A lot of us are in places where we can't watch videos, like an office or something.
And finally, we don't need a huge detailed summary when you post this stuff. Just a quick blurb on what the video is about, so we can choose if we want to watch it.
In this case, all it needed was "quick 5 minute video of leaked audio concerning Kari Lake and the establishment's attempt to bribe her"
Boom. That's it. Super low effort on your part, and everyone is happy.
Do you HAVE to do it? No. But people would appreciate it if you did, and they'd be more likely to watch the content you posted.
We don't want to click a random video, with no idea what it's about. I pretty much always ignore those, because so many videos are just trying to be a certain length. You end up with a lot of BS like Tim Pool spending 20-30 minutes talking about a headline and only 1-2 minutes of the video has anything useful.
And judging by how many people have asked this of you, just consider that it's polite forum etiquette. No, you don't have to do it. It's just the right thing to do.
As for me, 90% of the time I am on this site, it's for a quick 5-15 minute burst. I can read a lot in that time. I can't watch many videos. Additionally where I usually am at, I CAN'T watch videos because it's a quiet place and it would be pretty rude and unprofessional. A quick summary tells me if I should come back and watch it later once i am in a proper environment.