Content aggregators serve a useful purpose in filtering out the noise of the internet & bringing you gems. You did watch this video because the O.P. saw this video on a "zero-value content aggregator".
The credit for this video goes to "Physics Girl"; she's the one who made it. By hosting the video on her own channel on YouTube, she has a modicum of control over the presentation and proceeds of her work. On "sun-gazing", she shares the page with:
"the exotic belly-dancing cat"
"12 celebs who came out of the closet"
"12 celebs who are actually black"
"this food kills belly fat"
etc.
Of course she could disable embedding if she chose, but some sites that might embed her work might actually add some value or bring in traffic organically, rather than through SEO shenanigans and link-baitery. The less we reward the latter techniques our attention, the rarer they will become. The more we reward value-added sites, the more common they will become. I know which sort of web appeals to me. Anyone with taste can tell the difference, and fortunately on HN our mods have taste.
Nobody is denying Physics Girl's credit. I'm sure Physics Girl does appreciate her content being promoted for free, even by your despised Sun Gazing. Tell me one online personality who wouldn't want free "good" publicity?
Physics Girl does receive revenue from the embedded video as well.
The party that "loses out" to some extent is YouTube, since the user would not be taken to YouTube. However, YouTube does allow embedding, with the purpose of linking to content to generate traffic.
Looking at the 78 FB comments on the Sun Gazing post, it seems Sun Gazing is also a community. Surely an online community is not of "zero value".
The content creator benefits by getting publicity & money. The aggregator's audience benefits by getting content they want to see on their FB feed. YouTube benefits by getting traffic. Hacker News readers benefit from seeing the video in the first place. Seems symbiotic to me...
Well, we know they saw it through the aggregator because that was the link they posted. Unless the poster is somehow rewarded for sharing the link through the aggregator, it seems like a valid link. How else do you discover new sites unless you use them? If there is a line that we draw to distinguish click-bait sites from higher quality aggregators, who gets to determine where that line is?
I'm not sure how this question applies in this case, but I think it demonstrates that it isn't such a simple one to answer. I personally saw this video directly on YouTube a few days ago, but I know there are countless others I've only seen by following links.
As I reread your comment, I think I'm actually in support of your view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8
This "sun-gazing" site looks like the worst sort of zero-value content aggregator.