Your criteria exclude much that is useful. For example, scientific studies that confirm theoretical predictions or replicate previous results, which are both essential to good science. Your emphasis seems to be entirely on challenging established understandings and institutions and shaking things up, but if that's the only thing you respect as not "drivel", you just end up pushing contrarianism. Sometimes it's valuable to agree, or to come to consensus. Sometimes it's valuable to delve into the subtleties of an existing way of understanding the world. Sometimes it's valuable to explore how others already understand the world, while keeping quiet and not asserting anything of your own until you are well steeped in it. Not everything needs to be shaken up or disrupted all the time - to look only for this is the unwisdom of hubristic tech bros and conspiracists.