And the lore. Pathfinder has this amazing thing called lore where when it tells you about someone you can fucking click on it and read a small description, unlike BG3 who somehow expects everyone to know all the D&D lore and to make matters worse, whenver theres a chance for you to learn lore, it's behing a fucking DICE ROLL and you can fail, remaining baffled about what the fuck theyre talking about. Larian really needs to get better writters.
I agree about the highlighting and it would be cool if there was some kind of in-game wiki with non-spoiler setting lore, but the other part is just how roleplaying works.
Player knowledge is not character knowledge.
You might know something (or can look it up).
Your character does not (and can not).
Therefore, your character can not and should not gain advantage from something they don't know.
I'd never allow a player on a table to have his character use knowledge they couldn't logically possess just because the player has it.
And from my playthrough, skill checks pertaining to lore are done only for very rare knowledge (ie you won't be rolling to know who Bhaal is, because everyone knows that, but you might be rolling about the meaning of some ancient symbols).
Still, skill rolls in many situations are a flaky concept to begin with.
I'd prefer hard skill locks (must have a skill of at least X to succeed) over rolls. When it comes to knowledge and skills, you either know something or you don't, you can either do something or you can't.
Rolling doesn't make much sense (and just invites savescumming anyway) unless there is a very strict time limit (such as in combat) and your character couldn't just try again or think about it some more.
But that's an issue with all of DnD and Pathfinder (and many other systems) - too many skill rolls, not enough skill locks.