endelsohn added that video is "the best way to tell stories in this world" and "helps us to digest much more information."
A few more reason's that that's a stupid claim:
I can read faster than my grandmother can speak. I can scan and skim faster than my friends can speak spread over 12 different videos.
I can read at work without anyone noticing and without putting on headphones. I can type a response without anyone else being aware of it. I can even read text in a meeting.
I can search for specific text.
To pause "text with pictures", I stop paying attention; to resume, I start paying attention. Video will never be able to strip down a UI to that level of control.
I can polish text in drafts. I can compose text in my underwear. Neither are true about recording a video.
Speaking to her "best way to tell stories": as an example of how that's ridiculous, think about the resources it takes to film a season of Game of Thrones versus how much it took George R. R. Martin to write the book. People can get through the former faster and with less effort, but only only for the modest price of $6 million per hour. (Don't worry, once you get 8 million followers, that's not so bad per follower....)
If her statement were true, it would basically mean that Facebook is dead, because YouTube already does video. It's a lot easier to staple social functionality onto a video site than it is to press video into a social site.
You think the way text messages have nearly done away with voice calls and voicemail between friends would be a clue that most people prefer text to listening. And that's what amateur video usually is: a talking head in a bedroom.
If everything is a video, things that have to be a video -- a dance, a recital -- don't stand out above the noise.