...although the authors do not claim that humpback whale songs meet the linguistic rigor necessary for a true language.

Despite the "human-like" use of hierarchical syntax to communicate, Suzuki and his colleagues found that whale songs convey less than one bit of information per second. By comparison, humans speaking English generate 10 bits of information for each word spoken. "Although whale song is nothing like human language, I wouldn't be surprised if some marine mammals have the ability to communicate in a complex way.

Did you even read the article you submitted? I get it, you like animals.I like animals, even humans, some of them. But you're comparing other animals to humans at the things that humans are demonstratively best at. Its like saying that cattle are sometimes faster at running than cheetahs and maybe we've been defining "fast" or "run" wrong. If you move the goal post far enough apart and select the outliers you can find examples of anything, but you've proved nothing.

Your argument makes no sense because humans have been passing down oral history for ages too before the internet and writing. It was literally one person's job to memorize everything and then teach it to the next "history holder." That's why we have such shit record keeping before we invented books. And why ballads and songs were also used to help memorization.

However to a lesser extent books, but definitely the internet is far beyond a basic data aggregator. It allows instant communication across the entire world akin to telepathy, seemingly endless space for knowledge good or bad, entertainment, business enabling/generating, allows you to 1 way communicate with the dead by reading wisdom from some person 1,000 of years ago. You keep saying "well humans have a tool bias", yeah no kidding because the tools we make LITERALLY CHANGE THE WORLD, for good or bad. I believe it was the phantom menace who so aptly put it, "the ability to communicate doesn't make you intelligent."