At the end of the day, it comes down to what I'm looking for: information or entertainment.
When I read a new article (or a recipe, etc.), I do not want to be entertained: I am after specific information.
When I read a novel, though, I absolutely do expect to be entertained, so I enjoy all the fluff.
When I used to read print magazines and papers, they fell into the "entertainment" category. But when I read on a screen, that's not what I'm after; reading on a screen is an inherently uncomfortable process and better suited to bite-sized chunks.
Not that every article written in this way is a winner. But this one benefitted from the format imo
"How some TikTok manager games the system" is an abstract thing. A deep dive into a real step-by-step approach of pumping phony "content" and sneaking it past viewers' defenses - that's a concrete thing that couldn't be more disgraceful, save only for if the article explained that it's all done for a singular reason: every part of this self-referential loop of "content" is an opportunity to get viewers to spend money. That's where the funds for all of this come from: everyone there is a piece of the advertising machine.
Now, I can't stand all the irrelevant prose about the authors' personal experiences, how they met the subject in a cafe, and so many other extraneous details injected in for padding and storytelling. Hunter S Thomson did this decades ago.
If this is about how some TikTok manager games the system, a simple bullet list would be great...and a worthy length given its subject matter.