Episode 077 - That time Kurzgesagt made an ad for Big Pharma
Added 2022-11-13 15:58:00 +0000 UTCNothing to see hear.
Comments
This is not what's meant by conflict of interests. Kurzgesagt doesn't need to go out of their way to remove comments or ban others criticizing them. The fact they are propped up by millions of dollars to advocate for billionaires' interests gives them an unfair advantage against those critics that don't receive that much money. It creates and artificially saturated space of positive coverage for issue that should or otherwise would have been viewed more critically. A simple analogy - VPN companies are paying millions a year to blogs and creators affiliating with them to promote their companies/services. But no one is paying critics who point out flaws and limitations of these technologies. The resulting environment is thousands of outlets telling people they need a VPN for privacy and anonymity, when the technology was never even intended for that purpose, nor does it fulfill it. It's actively harmful to promote that idea because it gives a false sense of security. Similarly, billionaires are paying creators they know will say positive things about them. Which means these creators will have more resources to make more and better quality content than critics who will be left out and will struggle to keep with the quality and quantity without equivalent funding. Do you agree?
The Hated One
2022-11-20 16:22:57 +0000 UTCThat's a large scope. But I will cover that in the future.
The Hated One
2022-11-20 16:16:29 +0000 UTCI want to go over your point about how they're not mentioning these alternative solutions in their videos and you citing it as evidence of what their conflict of interest and that they're pushing an agenda. I do see the conflict of interest part, but not enough strength for the claim that they're pushing an agenda (pardon me if I misquoted you, but bear with me on this). You're asking us what more evidence you need, and I think you meant it as what real world source do we need to accept your arguments. But I think the evidence that's needed for this claim is not more evidence for conflict of interest, but more evidence that they're pushing an agenda and that they could be trying to suppress information. I don't know if you're gonna go into finding evidence that they're suppressing information, or maybe the saving the Gates sponsorship for the end of their videos and putting it in the description are evidence in of themselves. My point is though is that I think what could help is that you show evidence of people trying to challenge Kurzgesagt's videos and maybe evidence of them trying to silence these people. Or rather this could be evidence that they're supporting Gates' propaganda by actively rejecting criticism from people. And what I'm thinking of for this is maybe a few audience members, who maybe have the occupation and knowledge to challenge Kurzgesagt, that tried to comment on videos but got comments deleted. Or maybe actual displays of hostility from Phillip Dettmer or Mark Roser or somebody from the Kurzgesagt team. Now, I don't believe I'm gonna see them acting hostile since they'll want to maintain their public image of being benevolent and infallible YouTube educators. But if somehow they show animosity to anyone challenging their ideas or accusing them of pushing propaganda, then it'd be strong enough proof that they are in fact pushing agenda or helping Gates push an agenda. What if you tried commenting on all of their videos just to see how they'll react to your research? Or have anyone of us try to engage with Kurzgesagt and cite all the flaws in their videos and their sponsorship? And we can take pictures of our comments to see if they'll delete it or not. If they do, then we could pressure them into telling us why they deleted our comments, and we'll take screenshots of the conversation thread as it happens. Would you think it's problematic if we try this experiment and then have it show up in a video you make? Do you think it'll be worth it to try this experiment under careful anonymity practices? If I were to do a series that focused on exposing someone, I would try to platform anybody who tried doing the same thing and it didn't lead to that someone being deplatformed or didn't ruin the reputation that they have, whether they were closely involved with that someone or just a person orbiting from afar. Or someone who has a story of being silenced or was being pressured into being silent about something wrong. And then I would reflect on that person's account and present it to my viewers. Just having this kind of evidence of Kurzgesagt trying to suppress criticism and actively denying the truth about capitalism and history would tell me, as a viewer, that the viewpoints of Kurzgesagt aren't normal and that Kurzgesagt was trying to make me think of things in only one way, or that these billionaires are trying to make all of us think in only one way.
Petrified
2022-11-19 02:07:07 +0000 UTCOh and it might be a good idea to talk about the history of the IWW when looking at workers unions. Especially with the mayday affair.
v0odoo
2022-11-13 23:18:17 +0000 UTCI think you have a lot of strong evidence, but I think it might be a good idea to find other channels doing similar things as well. That way it feels more like a widespread issue.
v0odoo
2022-11-13 23:00:23 +0000 UTC
