Episode 075 - Enemy at the Gates!
Added 2022-11-04 12:20:01 +0000 UTCA peek inside the billionaire club.
Comments
So far, I think you did fairly well in staying with the subject matter and addressing the real wrongs in Kurzgesagt’s videos, that being the pool of sources only coming from one financially powerful entity or multiple entities, and that Kurzgesagt is being dishonest about this billionaire funding and information sourcing. I think what you could have done more was callback to the terms and examples that were laid out in episode 1, especially manufacturing consent and the tobacco example. Although you did tell us throughout episode 2 and 3 to look back at episode 1 to understand the discussions in these episodes, I don’t think it’s easy to try to make those connections ourselves. At least for me, it was hard to make the connections between the manufacturing consent term, tobacco example, and the billionaire sponsor discussion. This was all new information for me and I had to listen to the episodes over and over to really understand how the terms came into play for these episodes, and it’s why I feel like more detailed callbacks to episode 1 would’ve helped. It’s my opinion, and it’s just really just a slow comprehension issue on my end. But I understand you were already clear about what we should do to understand your arguments, and I do think you provided enough for each episode to allow us to make the connections. I also see how you’re trying to balance between “doing the topic justice” and helping us learn in a way that’s comprehensible, appropriate to the podcast format, and fitting within a timeliness that is good for you and all of us. I think you’re doing amazing on this, considering the scope of this subject, and you deserve so much more credit than what any of us can give for how much you work to balance all of these factors for any subject you cover. Last things I want to say are a few suggestions: posting screenshots of certain sections of the research document, making a chart comparing all the videos and the common patterns in each of them, or adding anything supplementary for the podcast that all the members can rely on in order to more effectively digest the content of each episode and stay focused on the arguments being made. At least I would appreciate a comparison chart because patterns, especially when they’re about abstract concepts, are easier to understand when they’re presented visually to me.
Petrified
2022-11-08 04:16:10 +0000 UTCThere is scientific evidence and expert critique against most of the issues that I have identified so far. There is a pattern of funding which on its is a problem as misguided priorities lead to negative consequences (i.e. rebound effect, cost shift, problem shift, etc.). Acceptance of this criticism also largely depends on your ideological disposition - e.g. a hard lined libertarian will allow any movement of one's private funds, irrespective of external effects, so long as free market principles are guarded. Your requirements for strong evidence are, however, irreconcilable. Evidence for results that manifest in the future are only available in theory. You don't seem to be asking for strong evidence in support of technological solutions, but you are asking for strong evidence for systemic solutions, when both need equal amount of evidence. Your question presupposes technological solutions are a given and it's the systemic solutions that need to prove themselves when need to be equally proven. So no, you are not going to find "strong evidence" for systemic solutions, because it exists in the future. You will find strong theory for and against both systemic and technological solutions. The problem is emphasizing one at the expense of the other (because one generates profit while the other doesn't) when verdict on the technological solutions is not conclusively supportive at all.
The Hated One
2022-11-07 17:27:54 +0000 UTCAt face value I think there are potentially problematic things but no evidence that anything wrong is actually happening. By itself, the fact that Bill Gates or the Foundation stand to benefit financially from something isn't enough to demonstrate wrongdoing. But it seems like that's the only thing you're putting forward so far. IMO, there's a big difference between Gates Foundation funding vaccine development and, say, Theranos. Bad: the Theranos tests didn't work, they're wasting funds that could go to something else. Wrongdoing: Theranos knew their tests didn't work and they were deliberately faking their results. You could find places related to the videos where the Gates Foundation is probably wasting money. For example, it seems that mass deworming treatments might not be effective (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-worm-wars/id1535408667?i=1000567966538). But could you find info that Gates or the Foundation knows something isn't working & is covering it up? You've hinted that Gates' fixation on technological solutions is crowding out systemic solutions. Can you find strong evidence that systemic works better than technological? Or that systemic + technological is better than technological alone, but Gates is preventing the systemic from getting funding?
David Love
2022-11-06 13:26:21 +0000 UTCThank you for this feedback. The series haven't gotten to the point where further conflict of interests are explained. But this will be very difficult to build a case against and communicate it in a digestible way. The premise is that Kurzgesagt videos give spotlight to the interests or agendas of billionaires that are funding them. These videos are presenting these interests as if they should be the public's interests. And through these presentations, billionaire's behind these videos stand to gain support for their goals that they also stand to financially gain from. That's because they have direct or indirect investments (major holdings, ownership stocks and donations) in for-profit businesses that are in the markets of the topics presented in the videos. If you were to take everything said above at face value (for this thought experiment), would you find this problematic? Whatever your answer is, what evidence of what wrongdoing would have to be presented to you in order for you to be concerned? Thank you very much in advance and I hope this isn't too much to ask from you.
The Hated One
2022-11-05 16:42:36 +0000 UTCEnjoyed the research depth as usual! As was commented above, the WHO gets lots of money from Gates... which just further clarifies that the WHO is not an authority on anything. Neither is the CDC for that matter. Each organization is just a group trying to drive their own agenda. Some being more fact based than others. I thought it was interesting that you brought up conspiracy theorists with regard to all of this. What is endlessly embarrassing for the so called authorities, is that conspiracy theorists beat the authorities level of correctness, time and time again. Why? Because the truth is the authorities enemy. Because the authorities are trying to drive the agenda they had already decided on. The science, is just a tool to make their predetermined conclusion more believable. But because they care about their agenda, and not about truth, their science is highly biased. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand, care mostly about things like truth, public safety, and such. (They have no financial motive to drive an agenda. ) As a result, they are constantly searching for real true science. When they find the truth, and call out the truth... the authorities universally bash the conspiracy theories. Why? Because the truth is the authorities enemy. Authorities are just -- yet another -- organization with an agenda. As I have pointed out months ago, the only solution is to become an expert personally, so the truth can be picked out from the lies. Which brings me right back to your depth of research... it is a path to the truth.
Peter
2022-11-05 09:26:19 +0000 UTCAre you serious. The funding completely affects the outcome. As a scientist your not going to get your next study funding if this study does not prove what your funder wants. I constantly hear scientist say they violated basic scientific practices. Bill Gates is a Bond villain. He is cornering the farm land market and not growing anything. Water rights. Bill gates is going to starve people. To force people to follow him while lining his pockets. People vote there wallet. The science that comes out today is so full of confirmation bias. The Hated one gullible. Government funded research decides what the outcome of the study will be based on what serves the government. Science, politics and medicine had been full of corruption, Cronyism and incompetence for decades. The hated one is working hard to stroke the egos of delusional, brain washed, useful idiots.
J
2022-11-05 01:32:22 +0000 UTCI really Like how in depth you have researched this Topic, and what you have found is pretty interesing. I would have considered myself a fan of kurzgesagt until now, but this really erodes my trust in their integrity. I agree that there is a massive problem with billionaire funding of any sort of media. And I really dislike the fact that they are taking money from the Bill and melinda gates foundation and not even being up front about it. This sucks! However, even though your criticism is valid, and you are pointing to a bigger problem at large here, I still think that the way Kurzgesagt is doing their sponsorships and accepts grants is still comparatively solid. They don't spread lies or misinformation for profit, their content is usually very well fact-checked and researched. Yes, it sucks if the scientists supporting them also receive money from Bill gates, they have a certain bias for sure. But I think Science is seen as way too objective by most people in general. Everybody has bias, agenda and survival needs they need to meet. And a scientist is no different. If they get money from a billionaire that will certainly influence their world view in some way or the other. But I still think that this is a realatively small evil which kurzgesagt is accepting here. Of course it would be great if they just do patreon and don't accept sponsors. But I still see why they are so loved by many people and seen as a studio which has a solid policy towards sponsorships. If you compare kurzgesagt with all the other Youtube channels out there, their content is pretty pure. They don't make entire videos that promote some product which nobody needs and they also don't take money from shady VPN companies or NFT/Crypto bullshit. They don't have sponsor segments in betwenn their videos and their content is very high quality. They don't just randomly put out a video. I think they said that making a kurzgesagt video takes about 1000 hours, and I believe that. Of course they spend a ton of time on their nice animations, but they don't just say anything without doing some solid research before that. So I think what I'm trying to say is that you found some corruption within kurzgesagt which needs to be criticized, but I don't know if your case is strong enough to convince people with that information. Because the product that kurzgesagt is putting out there is still pretty good and their information is still very reliable. I think right now there are channels out there that are incredibly more corrupt and dangerous. So I'm thinking that maybe I would talk about that first, before we talk about deeper issues like manufacturing of consent.
CopyCat
2022-11-04 17:27:59 +0000 UTCEven WHO is founded by Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. 2nd biggest donor.
Anonymous
2022-11-04 16:36:43 +0000 UTCHonestly, I don't think this is very good. Two hours of podcast and I don't recall a single example of Kurzgesagt getting anything wrong, but lots of vague arguments that they aren't promoting "systemic" solutions. I don't think this video will convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I don't watch Kurzgesagt, but I checked out three of the videos you've mentioned. What I've seen is: 1. A 2019 video sharing accurate information about vaccines. Sitting here in 2022 after a year where anti-vax lies have been a major public health threat, I can't build up anger if a rich guy wants to make a well-produced video countering the lies. 2. A video that had nothing to do with either effective altruism or longtermism. I'm honestly not a fan of longtermism either, but this video had nothing to do with it. 3 .A March 2020 video about covid that still holds up fairly well two years later and was better than the health authorities were doing at the time. Remember, back then health authorities were saying that Covid isn't airborne (https://mobile.twitter.com/WHO/status/1243972193169616898) and that masks make Covid worse (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-coronavirus-masks-risk-trnd/index.html) or are just ineffective (https://web.archive.org/web/20200303020926/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160). You asked for feedback, so I hope this helps.
David Love
2022-11-04 15:34:33 +0000 UTC
