Yes. But more than comparing a set of specific A vs B, I think the differences emerge from 1. fundamental entropy of the medium 2. mode of delivery 3. ambien

Yes. But more than comparing a set of specific A vs B, I think the differences emerge from 1. fundamental entropy of the medium 2. mode of delivery 3. ambient perception of consensus. Video is a medium that has far greater entropy than something static like a picture, or text. So creators have the ability to use all that extra space to create far more engaging content. Whether that leads to positive or negative outcomes is dependent on the content itself. The second aspect, the mode of delivery. Something like Instagram is immediately accessible. Flipping pages vs having it delivered straight to your eyes, magazines have no chance, even when you limit Instagram to only pictures. Lastly, social acceptance and the perception of acceptance. When something you see has tons of likes or shares or hearts or whatever it is, a magazine article with no cues on social acceptance has no chance. Now, I am very far from social media. But I enjoy content about science and tech. When I was younger, I learned a lot from Pop Sci/Scientific American mags. But now, going against science videos on Youtube - magazines have zero chance at delivering learning. My niece is constantly on Youtube looking at these, and at 10 years old, she can easily have a meaningful discussion with me about space or planets or whatever. So what we have is two things with entirely different levels of potential effectiveness. Whether you use each one for good or bad, that's up to the creator, moderators, platform hosts etc.