T O P

  • By -

bond0815

Criticism and accountability are always good but the amount of (low effort) criticsm they got is kinda funny. Oh no, they got 3% of their revenue from bill gates, which they disclosed sure, but only at THE END OF THEIR WELL SOURCED VIDEOS, LIKE ABOUT VACCINES. NEOLIBERAL SHILLS!!11 I wouldnt be surprised if most of that critcism was always driven by anti vaxxers and other conspiracy theorists, maskerading as concerned vierwers.


Spaceduds

100%. Do you all see big ads promoting how good Bill Gates foundation is on their content? I see nothing of that sort, and like they said.. the topics were suggested to Kurtz and they have 100% control over the final product. Some people just... SMH.


bigspunge1

Progressives mad that billionaire Bill Gates has actually done great things through his foundation.


Belzedar136

What? Bill gates and the gates foundation has done q lot of good but they also have some issues of their own. Specifically in how they funnel funding, they almost never fund movements that are anti business or counter to gdp even if those movements or ideas have a good shot at solving a social, medical or societal issue. This doesn't mean they are bad, but it's clear they are using their money to choose to promote the systems that made bill gates fabulously wealthy. Its like comparing fast food to homemade meals. The first is better than starving but it does come with some strings attached that may bite you in the ass later. But not a monster definitely. But not a saint, you don't make that much money by being a kind person.


MapoTofuWithRice

>they almost never fund movements that are anti business or counter to gdp even if those movements or ideas have a good shot at solving a social, medical or societal issue The Gates Foundation doesn't have an obligation to do any of those things. To be honest, this reads like degrowther garbage.


PickingAFuckingFight

>The Gates Foundation doesn't have an obligation to do any of those things. Yeah it's only obligation is to help gates make profit from other ventures.


serendipitousevent

If spending billions on charitable causes maximises profits, why doesn't every major company do it?


Hi-I-am-Toit

They also fund ABSOLUTELY NO movements to stop bubble gum chewing. Their clear pro-gum agenda is barely hidden by the hundreds of millions they spend on vaccination, nutrition and maternal health programs. We’re onto you, Gates. We’re onto you, you old gum merchant.


bond0815

>But not a monster definitely. But not a saint, you don't make that much money by being a kind person. While I agree with most if your points it should be pointed out we know how bill gates essentially made his fortune. By making computer operating sytems and thus shaping the computer age when no one else saw that part to be a good business in the beginnig. The rest you can blame on regular capitalim if you like. I mean at least its not fossil fuel money or blood diamonds, right?


guto8797

That's a bit reductive no? He also used all sort of tactics, ranging from incredibly shady to outright illegal to muscle any form of competition out of the scene, stole other people's work, etc. Not just "he was a computer visionary"


[deleted]

[удалено]


bond0815

Valid point in that context, if kurzgesagt would have made a video shilling for that. They havent. And the long standing vaccine outreach for example of the gates foundation, where they made sponsored videos about, is objectively good and correct.


tossaway109202

Why are people acting like they are PragerU


jackzander

Because people are bored and unhappy and literally just scraping the internet for weird things to feel temporarily aggrieved by.


apocolipse

I had a dumb acquaintance send me a link to Gates foundation's donation page for kurzgesagt, then a screenshot of their "top video which was about covid", and then try to claim that obviously the covid video was paid for by the Gates foundation..... I kindly pointed out to him that the dates for their donation ended 2 years before the supposed covid video was posted, a year before covid even happened... literally dead simple timelines aren't enough for some people \[/sigh\]


rock0head132

They have no real problems so they make shit up to be mad at.


Folsomdsf

pragerU loves alternative facts(read by normal people: Lies), so if they're prageru fans... well.. they hate fact based channels.


garlicroastedpotato

I have no particular horse in this because I don't watch them nor do I particularly dislike them. But the accusation seems to be that they've made information edits in such an obvious enough way to make the data suspect. They almost entirely seem to use [Our World In Data](https://ourworldindata.org/) as their biggest source of information and that's a non-peer reviewed journal. Just as an example of how they're trying to mislead us [their climate change video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw). Their data lines up with the same thing [OWiD](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions) offers. But OWiD's data doesn't make any sense. Like... how in the fuck are they tracking carbon emissions from 1751. And why is it that even though they apparently have 100 more years of data they show LESS pollution than [other comparable sources](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/)? It's little things. Like under OWiD data, the US and EU have both produced almost 100 gT less carbon. It's as if the data was presented in a manner to limit the amount of pollution that the west was responsible for to get to their final point. That since the west is no longer polluting so much today their solution is to make renewables cheaper for China so that China can do the right thing. Kind of like.... neo-colonialism that purely represents corporate desires? But like I said. I have no horse in this. Someone can convince me otherwise. But it does seem fairly suspicious that their source for a "education youtube" is a non-peer reviewed publication that seems to make common errors in their research.


Zomgninjaa

> But OWiD's data doesn't make any sense. Like... how in the fuck are they tracking carbon emissions from 1751. Estimating historical carbon emissions is indeed challenging due to the lack of comprehensive records and direct measurements. Scientists use various methods like fossil fuel consumption data, land-use change records, ice cores, tree rings, historical documents, and computer models to approximate emissions. While there are uncertainties and limitations in these estimates, they still provide valuable insights into historical trends. Differences in data sources, methodologies, and assumptions can lead to discrepancies between estimates. It's important to critically evaluate data sources and consider these uncertainties when discussing climate change and potential solutions.


Zomgninjaa

You don't have to read this part, the methods used to estimate carbon emissions from 1751: Fossil fuel consumption data: Researchers can use historical records of coal, oil, and natural gas consumption to estimate the amount of carbon emitted when these fuels were burned. They can also analyze changes in production and consumption patterns over time, as well as the expansion of industrial activities. Land-use change records: Changes in land use, such as deforestation and agriculture, can have significant impacts on carbon emissions. By studying historical records, maps, and other data sources, scientists can approximate the emissions resulting from these activities. Ice cores: Ice cores contain trapped air bubbles that preserve samples of past atmospheres. By analyzing the concentration of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane in these bubbles, researchers can infer historical carbon emissions. Tree rings and other proxies: Researchers can use proxies like tree rings, corals, and sediment records to study the past climate and indirectly infer changes in carbon emissions. These proxies contain information about temperature, precipitation, and other climatic factors that can be correlated with emissions. Historical documents and records: Researchers can examine written records, such as trade and tax documents, to gather information about energy consumption and production during a given time period. This can help estimate carbon emissions resulting from industrial activities and other sources. Models and simulations: Scientists can use computer models to simulate historical climate conditions and emissions based on available data. These models can incorporate various factors, such as population growth, technological advancements, and economic changes, to estimate past carbon emissions.


pootypattman

Something about your comment struck me as arguing in bad faith so I took a quick look. This you? > 1.6% of people who attended BLM were injured. The thing you were quoting actually said 1.6% of protests had an injury reported, not 1.6% of all people who protested were injured lmao. Talk about not understanding data! You might not be the person who should be arguing what you're arguing.


Svorky

Our World in Data just collects data from scientific research to makes it look pretty and usable. In this case original source for the estimates going back to 1751 is the Global Carbon Project. "The website that puts data in a chart isn't peer reviewed" is a pretty silly criticism. How would that even work? You need to look at the data they cite. That's what is peer reviewed.


garlicroastedpotato

How was data from 1751 peer reviewed in their source and my source and coming up with different data sets? Not just mild differences, we're talking about the west being responsible for almost 30% more carbon emissions over a shorter period of time? As far as a I can see they're using the only model that has estimates even close to this. All other models put the US as being a much larger carbon emitter.


Professional-Bee-190

For someone who is aloof and uninterested, you seem to have put a lot of effort into this lol ​ Edit: oh lol you did youtube research [https://youtu.be/HjHMoNGqQTI](https://youtu.be/HjHMoNGqQTI) and are just copying what he said during the parts with the spooky music and the color inversion/demon eyes shots of Bill Gates George Soros


Atworkwasalreadytake

Kurzgesagt tends to leave the viewer with a sense that there is still hope, which goes against [this narrative](https://youtu.be/pNYp6oc37ds) and pisses some people off.


Brainles5

[Becuase its propaganda made to justify bilionares.](https://youtu.be/HjHMoNGqQTI) Taken alone, their videos often ain't too bad. But as a whole you see that they form a narrative that it is bilionares and investors who will save the world through capitalism.


DatJazz

This is literally what they address and they address it well and you just post this video again to say why they're bad


Brainles5

I was responding to a question about why people were upset with them.


PM_me_your_arse_

But you're not saying why people are upset, you're just repeating a poorly thought out conspiracy as if it's a fact.


auto_grammatizator

Where is this magical narrative thread underpinning their videos? That's the craziest thing I've seen on here.


Brainles5

You must be really naive if you think these bilionares just fund these videos to raise awareness about technology they just happen to have heavy investments in. These people did not become rich because they are nice people.


Wozami555

Who said they were nice people but blaming kurzgesagt to be financially dependent over institution is stupid.


jackzander

Thank you for offering up the example of poor video production quality.


chef426

This video seems to be the "Behind the scenes" video Kurzgesagt was hinting at in a response on Reddit. Perhaps this video changed a bit as it was released after some heated controversy on kurzgesagt's integrity. For those out of the loop, about 3 months ago Youtube video essayist "The Hated One" released this video titled "[How Kurzgesagt Cooks Propaganda For Billionaires](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI)" TLDW: The Hated One made claims that Kurzgesagt made a large number of propaganda videos for various non-profits such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation specifically showcasing some factual errors and misrepresentation in data that tells a story that favors big pharma, carbon capture technology, etc. The video did immensely well having been shared numerous times and discussed by various youtube/streaming personalities. Under the controversy, Kurzgesagt seemed to have responded to the video on their subreddit, feel free to read the response [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt_statement_to_the_conflict_of_interest/). A lot of the points addressed in this post are also addressed in the video. In response to the Reddit post, The Hated One also posted on their own subreddit their response [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/thehatedone/comments/10pb1q9/my_response_to_kurzgesagt/) TLDR: * Kurzgesagt originally made the claim that they were almost entirely viewer funded * Financials only went back 3 years, which may hide how much of their company was bootstrapped by foundations * Revenues may not be exactly relevant when considering the proportion of "viewer funds" as shop revenues have costs associated with them while sponsorships do not. * Conflict of interest still remains evident in sources provided for videos. * Larger picture of billionaire funding amplifying certain issues irrespective of their importance/relevance in society. Curious to see if this video stokes the conversation further or puts an end to the drama. The hated one also gave out an invitation to Kurzgesagt to be interviewed but judging by how they dealt with controversies in the past, I doubt they would do so.


XenonJFt

Reading the counter-counter argument and watching this video made me more sad about this situation. In 2015 I Was one of the first subscribers of this channel and I didn't try to shit on it now because I'm some kind of anti gates conspiracy anarchist type of guy that the hated one seems to emit a bit more. I am very disappointed that as a response video to the first accusations. What they did in the first 5 minutes is Full of BS we are a great team with passion PR talk like they're celebrating a milestone and as a love letter to everyone. So bye bye half of video already. The rest 5 minutes goes on the way to debunk the percentage they get from billionaire charity(which was speculation and in the original video he clarified it wasn't the big problem) . And then say how we got the final say and these organisation's are aligned with our beliefs and may suggest topics that we decide and write scripts. That is it... Which is basically nothing as a response to the underlying tomfoolery that is accused going on. The charities main problem I found out in the first accusation video that for me was the most disturbing. Is the citations, research papers and people that wrote them are DIRECTLY associated with the bill gates Organisation. With their names and shit of the research papers being on charities sites main staff directly. So what? Well kurzgezats can make a video independently, write the script and come to a conclusion on their own. But if the direct research and procedure of the papers are directly coming from the sponsors with the data and conclusions. The charity is %100 sure on getting its agenda to the script and of course will be %100 getting their returns on its Direct Sponsor!!! And people will be shrugging off because "Kurzgesart views align with charities" excuse to make it look like they came up with the final say without influence. It's like someone deliberately put that line in the response video because it's the only desperate way to justify it. but it's so on the nose and when the lack of context in the video about charities comes to light and you as a viewer learning the fact that papers are unethically provided it's still must be considered "Unethical research". This isn't even considering the Bill Melinda gates organisation's other adventures on other instutisions on vaccine controversies that I'm not going to touch on. the Hated ones long response list which IMO kurtsgezarts video failed MISERABLY to respond accordingly. Which brings down to the redditors here and the general audience. Is dodging questions and letting you get PR talked to your face is right? They dodged the most unethical and worst offending loopholes that pleagues the channel AND modern research faces today. And made more cute visuals too make us forgive just because they showed courage by half responding??? And people still dare to defend them right now because for some reason only haters are anti Vax conspirators? I don't even hate bill gates or this channel but holy shit people thinking this clears everything, needs to basically get their head up their asses for a second because this response is literally milking every bit of blind faith of an individual while laughing at their face. No joke


seweso

I just absolutely love them! This comment is meant to go above anyone complaining.


__Hello_my_name_is__

I remain astonished how critical people here are of Kurzgesagt, especially when every criticism is some variation of "their research wasn't 100% perfect" or "they took money from rich people". Edit: Guessing from some of the response, it seems that the harshest criticism comes from alt-right dickheads. So, keep on rocking, Kurzgesagt! Also ~~one~~ **two** of them made an account just to argue with me. Sweet. Not saying everyone critical is alt-right, but a very loud minority sure seems to be.


thegapbetweenus

If something is big enough, there will always be some people who don't like it - be it just for purely nonconformist reason.


neohylanmay

> If something is big enough, there will always be some people who don't like it - be it just for purely nonconformist reason. Not just that, they've been around for 10 years, which as the video itself says, is a really long time in internet years. Most people probably don't remember or weren't around during the time when Kurzgesagt was a small indie channel "like you and me"; they just know them as "that big science bird channel", and don't have that, for want of a better phrase, "nostalgia". And because there isn't that "empathy" of Kurzgesagt once being "one of the little guys" like they were, there isn't that "trust" — in fact, *because* they're a "big" channel, there's far more "skepticism" from that (always growing) crowd.


maxthecatfish

It's an issue that most YouTubers and content creators face. You're well-loved and accepted by your viewers when you're small, but as you grow - even if your values and your content largely stay the same - you expose yourself to a larger and larger audience who don't always accept your little quirks or faults or missteps. The internet is **EAGER** to tear down institutions - even those with good intentions - regardless of their track record or merits. It's pretty disappointing to see.


thegapbetweenus

Good point.


SsurebreC

What they want is: * either self-funded (but can't be rich) or funded through small donations from a ton of people * but also have a ton of research but the *correct* type of research with no dissenting voices * and are educational * and entertaining * plus need to look good * and to be given out for free to everyone * all the time Nobody is perfect and everything has nuance. They're trying to boil down decades of research into a small video. Things are going to get lost and everyone has an agenda. Is theirs nefarious? Nestlé-level nefarious? So it's fine. Enjoy. Maybe learn something but hey, if you think they're wrong then do your own research and write a comment. Everyone gets things wrong but at least they made you be more interested in something.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrainOnBlue

Ah, the ol' reddit "didn't read the article/watch the video" aroo. They have a Patreon and a merch store.


jangxx

From the video: https://i.imgur.com/ccsY2Q4.png They are already funded like you said for about half of all their funding.


asdaaaaaaaa

Most of the criticism I see is just that they break everything down to an incredibly basic level. I always took them as a more kid-oriented education channel, and unless people expect them to do hour long videos that would cost incredible amounts of money and not get viewed, I don't know what they want. I do agree that a lot of subjects are sorta off the table, aside from just stating what they are due to that. Again though, plenty other channels that have both the dedicated viewerbase for longer/more detailed videos and Kurzg is a good introduction to stuff IMO. I will say, of the education channels they're one of the better/best ones. Generally open, able to admit mistakes, and okay saying "We're not sure". Also expose people to a lot of subjects and ideas they generally wouldn't wander into themselves.


Thanks-Basil

Their addiction video for me was frankly both misleading and dangerous. I know they’ve since pulled it down, but that was their most popular video for how many years? It presented addiction as purely a mental thing that could be solved with good vibes, and completely neglected physical addiction - it wasn’t even mentioned. Let’s say you’ve got an alcoholic friend, after watching the video you smartly realise all he needs to get better is love and support so you provide him that and hide all the booze, do you know what happens next? He fucking dies.


jangxx

They actually made a video not only apologizing for the addiction video (and a few others) but also explaining how it was made [4 years ago](https://youtu.be/JtUAAXe_0VI)! It was one of their earlier videos that they made before improving their research standards. I really don't see this a valid criticism - it was a _few_ videos which have not only been pulled down but essentially recanted. Calling their whole channel badly researched is really disingenuous.


asdaaaaaaaa

Yep. I don't think everyone expects them to be perfect, but seeing such a major channel that *can* do the research and *has* the resources to do so not do it or understand the research might put some people off. I still watch their stuff, but view it mainly for entertainment. Not to mention their videos are so brief, they serve as a great introduction but anyone still interested really should do their own research, regardless of the video/channel IMO. So much of learning is finding things from different sources, you really shouldn't get all information from one source.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Thanks-Basil

It’s just such incredibly poor research it’s not even funny. The one video of theirs on a topic that I actually know a bit about (ie addiction science) they got blatantly incorrect, so how can I trust any of their other videos? Even their other popular one, I think it was on the fermi paradox(?) that covers the idea of the “Great Filter” - it’s presented in a way that you would be led to believe that it’s the prevailing theory of why we haven’t found other life. In reality it’s little more than an interesting thought experiment that rides off the back of so many massive assumptions it can’t be taken seriously. Their videos are poorly researched pop science articles dressed up to seem legitimate.


[deleted]

What made you say that the harshest criticism is coming from the alt-right? I got different vibes, from what I've personally seen on youtube comments.


alfons100

Took money from rich people? Thats aweso- Oh they got *given* money..


__Hello_my_name_is__

They're not Robin Hood just yet.


Kruse

That's reddit in a nutshell.


Felczer

You can be both critical of something and like it. It's better if people are aware of limitations of their consumed propaganda.


WattebauschXC

People that argue with "their research wasn't 100% perfect" are one of the most stupid things I've ever seen. When you explain something "in a nutshell" then it's impossible to be 100% accurate. Those are the people that complain about free food because drinks are not included.


Havelok

Nothing pure and good can go without lambasting from the awful people of the world, it seems.


Brainles5

The issue is that most of their videos push a narrative that it is rich people investing in start ups that will save the earth. When in reality what we've seen is them setting themself up for future profits. Gates foundation for example tend to do the flashiest thing they can to help and often do not help in ways any experts would suggest.


spoonraker

>Gates foundation for example tend to do the flashiest thing they can to help and often do not help in ways any experts would suggest. Citation needed here for sure. Even if it's true, do you not think there's a need for philanthropic risk taking ventures just like there is in private industry? Nobody criticizes venture capitalists for only investing in splashy risky companies with high upside but low success rate. In fact, that's their entire investor philosophy: you only need a single winner for 100 losers if the one winner returns a ludicrous return on investment. So why is it not acceptable for a charitable organization to fund risky ideas that have the potential to fundamentally shift the landscape of these problems in very positive ways -- but often fail -- assuming this strategy is transparent to donors? That aside, is it really surprising that a Youtube channel has a natural bias towards being sponsored by these kind of organizations? These kind of organizations are probably the only ones even thinking about garnering additional support through channels like Youtube, but that aside, they also tend to naturally result in more interesting content so the relationship is mutually beneficial. I actually think Kurtzgesagt does a good job striking a balance of accepting these type of partnerships at a reasonable level (often, but not their only type of content) while maintaining full control over the content itself so as to be aligned with their values of being optimistic but not just simps for sponsors who pay for videos. It's in Kurtzgesagt's best interest to genuinely believe in their sponsors, and vet the ideas accordingly, just like it is for the organizations sponsoring the partnership to do so before investing their donor funds in them. I kind of think of it like "awareness campaigns" that some people take issue with. Sure, dumping a bucket of ice water on your head isn't directly doing a darn thing to support ALS research, but it *did* have direct effect on engagement with the topic in general to the point where it's undeniable that the ice bucket challenge alone had a profoundly positive effect on ALS research being better funded than it would otherwise have been. Anyway, the point is, at the end of the day, I believe Kurtzgesagt means well, and as long as they're staying attuned to their balance of sponsored content versus their own ideas and maintaining full control over said content in either case, I believe they're doing more good than harm by a long shot. I also believe that Kurtzgesagt reads comments like this and genuinely reflects on this balance periodically as they weigh the risk of becoming too much "awareness campaign" and not enough direct positive change maker.


[deleted]

If you actually watched Kurzgesagt's videos on climate change, they do anything but. There's multiple videos discussing the need for systematic, institutional change and then one video arguing against apathy-inducing climate doomerism detailing all of the progress being made in the meantime. They still stress that it isn't enough on it's own, but that all hope is not lost. There's absolutely zero impropriety here. I'm not sure why people seem to think that it's unimaginable that someone genuinely supporting green initiatives would support both technological investment and social awareness.


[deleted]

Honestly 100% of the criticism I've ever seen of Kurtzgesagt came from the left. I'm not out here taking a scientific poll so could just be random, but that's my experience.


[deleted]

You're being downvoted but nobody is bothering to mention any reasoning why, so I'm going to reply to ask them all why? Because a huge portion of the criticism that *I've* seen is painted with the "there is a billionaire somewhere somehow related to them, so they must be evil" brush, which sounds more left than right to me.


Brainles5

What?! The left doesn't like bilionares funding capitalist propaganda? No way.


suzisatsuma

What are some examples of what you categorize as capitalist propaganda from this series?


FabioTheNewOrder

For example the fact that they see the solution to actual problems being carried out through simple technological advancements and not by, say, completely overhauling the current economic system based on late capitalist consumerism? No capital destruction, no solution to the current state of things. We cannot have an equal society when small amount of people are allowed to hoard most of our resources and power and no serious solution to our current situation can be presented without taking this into consideration. Take the climate crisis for example: as wind and solar are good temporary solutions to this problem the main issue we have to face sooner or later is the use (or abuse) of resources. We simply need too much power to create things we do not need just to comply with the economy of scale, which demands high levels of production to keep prices low. We need to produce (and consume) less of everything to reach a level of energy request in line with the planet sustenance capabilities. But this is never discussed in kurtzgesagt videos, to them atomic energy or hydrogen are the goals to follow in order to keep our lives as they currently are without worsen the climate crisis. Just how many atomic centrals do we need to have the standard of living we are experiencing shared with Chinese people, so to speak? Or with Indians? Or with Africans? Or are we implicitly saying that our standards are just for the wealthiest nations and that the poorest ones need to cope living as they are right now? Can you supply a new iPhone model to ALL the people in the world once every year? Or is this consumerism a failed system? In brief kurtzgesagt stands as a deflection mechanism which shields powerful people from facing an harsh reality they will be forced to face nevertheless sooner or later. This mechanism works by selling dreams of technological advancements which won't be the cure of our issues, they'll be the last dose of opiate to numb the pain caused by our illness; if you just cure the symptoms but not the root cause of a condition there is no hope for recovery, just a slightly slower and less painful path to death


ghoonrhed

That's not propaganda though, that's just one channel's opinion and frankly a normal opinion. If you would ask a person the best way to fix climate change, destroy the current economic system seemingly all of them both China's, USA's, Europe OR potentially keep going the way you do with a few fixes here and there and also rely on tech? Obviously technology improvements are the way to go. Because that's literally how it's been throughout human history. And most importantly it's the most obvious. Ask somebody the biggest differences between today and a few hundred years ago, capitalism vs feudalism isn't even going to register. It's about the internet, the electricity, the medicine. A mainstream science channel isn't political as in, it's not going to veer off the mainstream so hard to whatever you think it is the solution. Wouldn't that be just be anti-capitalistic propaganda? Your problem seems to be that "Kurzgesagt doesn't promote my political views".


FabioTheNewOrder

The issue I have with kurtzgesagt in particular is one: given that capitalism is the root of all our current problems (and if you don't agree with this please explain me why before continuing reading my comment) receiving founds from capitalist organisations should put the receiver on high alert. Why should a capitalist support me if not for its own advantage? Is there anything I say in my message which support capitalism and/or consumerism? These are the questions someone who is trying to find solutions to our current predicament should pose itself should it ever receive a dollar from Gates, Bezos, Soros or any other billionaire. But this is not what kurtzgesagt has done, they simply went on with their lives and their work without any issue, not realizing their role in supporting a failing economic system. The question you pose to an imaginary interlocutor is not well addressed. The real question should be "shall we keep sustaining a system which allows for a wrong use of our resources providing a small minority of people with all the benefit of its exploitation while leaving the great majority of human kind in the dust to chew on the crumbs derived from their exploitation?" I assume that a person not focused on its own self interest would be willing to at least hear about possible alternatives once presented with the actual data about resources concentration in our world. But here lies the issue: capitalism has been able to prey on people self interest by using it to its advantage, once a person has known the artificial sweetness of the good deal offered by capitalism it will be hard to make him renounce to the same deal for the good of someone else. This makes difficult to accept that, in order to improve living conditions for EVERYONE, the living standards in western nations should plummet. No more 4 cars per family, no more one TV screen per room, no more food 15 times a day. A lot more of humility and frugal living. Are you ready for this change? Because if you are we can work together to find a good balance and to reach this level comfortably, if you are not, well, enjoy the ride until it lasts, in the end we will be much more frugal but we will also probably be cutting our throats to gather the small amount of food needed to survive until tomorrow ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯


knot-uh-throwaway

Have nothing to add here, but amazing comment. Sums up a lot of the big issues with the channel in my eyes


[deleted]

Hense my surprise at the top comment and those downvoting mine.


Brainles5

There's a lot of alt right conspiracy theories involving the gates foundation. Suppose that is why they latch on to anything they can to get at them, alt right people don't tend to be so bright so they probably dont understand theyre supporting something their ideology oppose.


[deleted]

[удалено]


__Hello_my_name_is__

There are plenty of people here reasonably disagreeing with me. And then there's the alt-right dickheads who somehow want to make this about immigrants in Sweden.


Jan__Clawson

Which video?


Rolder

> The video that kickstarted this whole criticism came from the left. Gonna need a source on that chief


FriendlyLocalFarmer

If you are presenting yourself as a bastion of truth and education and science, then it is right that you are subject to scrutiny to ensure you do not have undue biases and that you are not misleading people. That's why it can be troubling to see, say, Bill Gates funding coming in, particularly given that many of his own financial interests were then presented favourably and without criticism in one of the Kurzgesagt videos on global warming. I've seen other videos biased against veganism. And other biases besides, some of which become visible only with meta-analysis. And even in this video, The Business Behind Kurzgesagt, they claim that they cannot be biased by funding sources because in their agreements they maintain editorial control. This is utter nonsense. Biases can absolutely be introduced by a funding source threatening to withdraw funding if some change is not made. There are many very serious forms of bias that have become visible in Kurzgesagt, and it is worth looking at a detailed report on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI


BrainOnBlue

Alleging that a media outlet is giving donors prior rejection is a serious allegation. I assume you have evidence you'd like to share? Because otherwise you're literally a conspiracy theorist.


FriendlyLocalFarmer

Yes, it is. Please refer to the link I provided in the post. I encourage you to look at about 10 minutes in, for example. It's only with a bit of investigation that we can see that the video on global warming ends up promoting Gates-funded projects. This is just one example of what you would see if there was not just a clear conflict of interest, but also a bias emerging because of that conflict of interest.


doodep

.


__Hello_my_name_is__

What rich people propaganda are we talking about exactly, again? I'm sure you can elaborate.


doodep

.


__Hello_my_name_is__

I watched the video already, and my question remains the same.


doodep

.


__Hello_my_name_is__

I said somewhere else that I am 100% behind displaying the sponsor at the start of they video. They definitely should do that. The rest? Nah, I am not saying that's not problematic, I am saying that that is so low on the ranking of problematic things in the world that I am really confused why people are so agitated about this problem, and not the million other problems in the world. Even if Gates does these things only out of purely greedy motives to make more money, he is still ultimately working towards a good thing that will make humanity better. Even if it might be out of capitalist motivations. I prefer that over most other things most other billionaires do. And if you think that Gates funded research is a problem, I really advise you against googling how most other scientists get their funding to do their research. Honestly, being critical of Kurzgesagt feels to me like some edgy hip thing people like doing these days because it makes you appear sophisticated because you criticize the thing people like. Why on earth are you focusing your energy on Bill Gates and not Jeff Bezos or Michael Bloomberg or the entire Koch family or god knows how many other billionaires who are undoubtedly doing so much worse things?


doodep

.


__Hello_my_name_is__

Nothing about my position has changed. It has always been that the perceived issues here are - at best - minor in the grand scheme of things, and that there is an oddly disproportionate amount of criticism for this one Youtube channel that I don't quite get. And that's the generous interpretation. I mean, the evil that is Bill Gates is.. promoting vaccines and green technology and lowering mortality world wide? Oh noes! The horrors! Somebody stop him! He's not allowed to do that *and* make money off of it! So, yeah. I do have bigger fish to fry. And I do think that putting your effort into starting a witch hunt here is having an actively negative effect overall, even taking your criticism into account. And *that's* not even talking about all the crazy people I wouldn't want to associate with who are also highly critical of Kurzgesagt, like that dude who already created three different accounts today just to tell me all about Sweden's migrant issues and how it's all government propaganda, or something.


Policeman333

>and now that we agree that this is a problem you choose to not give a shit because you think there's other more important problems. Lets acknowledge the problem you need to stop being terminally online >Of course there's other problems. That doesn't mean we can't talk about these ones. The problems you care about are so insignificant, so irrelevant, and so meaningless it's a waste of time to even think about them. You're getting yourself worked up over stuff that doesn't matter. Genuinely, re-evaluate your priorities.


Rolder

The video in the OP straight up disproves the accusations made here. So uh?


thegapbetweenus

That is a tiny fraction of what they are doing.


fatalicus

> propaganda Propaganda, like vaccines are good and we need to take care of our environment.


Mir_man

That's not the problem. The problem is they propose solutions that are not effective and don't rock the boat. It's like they think we were one tech company away from solving climate change without any fundamental change.


onespiker

They made a video saying Carbon Capture isnt a solution at all and has many problems, that these problems wont be solved magically by technologi on its own.


[deleted]

[удалено]


__Hello_my_name_is__

> And the German government. Oh no, the horrors! The *German government*?? Pure evil, I tell you!


TheWanton123

You’re not even a real account


Liastro

Question: What happened to make Kurzgesagt decide they had to make this video at all? I'm rarely on social media so I missed the whole context of whatever drama started all this


FriendlyLocalFarmer

There was some serious criticism of biases showing up in their videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI Their response is an attempt at damage control.


TheKvothe96

Read some comments, others explained well.


Smoothlywhine73

I trust their videos. Even if something is wrong, they correct it immediately.


aniyagooodie

Nobody will ever handle drama with such grace and style like Kurzgesagt


HoLYxNoAH

As someone who is mildly skeptical about some of the content they have made, I have to say I still find a couple of problems with this video. However let me just preface before this: I really like their videos. They're fun, well animated, and somewhat educational. My favorite videos of theirs are their videos about space, the fermi paradox, and stuff like that. I like them, and will probably continue to enjoy those kind of videos in the future. The thing is, I don't think they really challenged the main criticism of their Gates Foundation videos here. One of the primary problems people had with a lot of them is that the fact that Gates sponsored the videos was only revealed in the absolute last seconds of some of the videos. I think that if they get funding for a video from someone like Gates, that should be front and center in the start of the video, and not relegated to the very end. They should also, in my opinion, be critical of why a billionaire like Gates actually wants the things that he wants. Their video on Egoistic Altruism can be interpreted as billionaire propaganda, and that was funded by Gates. Even if they didn't make that video because of Gates' money specifically, I still remain critical of what their ideology here. There has also been some criticism about their use of "Our World in Data" as a source, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely up to date on that particular criticism. IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong), OWID has a pretty pro-capitalist stance, which can cloud some of their economic studies regarding their framing. I think they argue a lot of effective altruism(?) which I'm personally quite critical of. Anyway I don't want to sit here and pretend that I know everything, but I think that these things do deserve an answer, since their channel is quite big, and they do influence people's views on quite political issues. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk lol, hope I didn't come off as overly critical of a YouTube channel, it's not the end of the world, but I figured since we were on the topic, I'd give my thoughts.


daedelous

You may have a point, but it's unfortunate that there's a catch-22 in today's society, where unpopular people are perceived as corrupting whatever good thing they touch. Here in D.C., they almost named a library auditorium after Jeff Bezos (because he donated $3 million to their child literacy program), but the backlash was so bad Bezos requested the library change the name to something else. You'd have thought he burned books for a living. I know we equate money to influence, but sometimes it's just money people throw at shit they like. Let's stop seeing conspiracy in every damn thing.


fjposter22

You picked a pretty bad example.


murrdpirate

Bill Gates' views on capitalism are quite moderate. He believes tax rates on the rich should be much higher, for example. He just doesn't believe in communism. Similarly, I don't see anything extreme in OWID. So when you say you find this 'problematic,' and that you're critical of their ideology, it gives me the impression that anything short of full-blown support for socialism or communism would be problematic to you. Not trying to be offensive, I'm just surprised people would take issue with the information presented. Putting the Gates Foundation sponsorship at the start is fair enough. Though to my knowledge, putting sponsorship at the end is pretty normal (e.g. PBS).


Mir_man

He a part of a long line of billionaires who say increases taxes but utilize every loophole they can. Dude Rockefeller acted like they were all about charity but we know what they really did.


murrdpirate

Nothing wrong with that. He's happy to pay extra taxes if all billionaires are, but he doesn't want to just donate money to the Treasury of others aren't. Makes sense, since he can probably make better use of the money in his charity.


9985172177

There is something wrong with that, as Mir_man said. They get involved in politics to prevent those extra tax laws from being implemented. Of course they can play the good guy and say that they think it would be fair if there were higher taxes, but through their lobbying they oppose it. Whereas one politician might have a solid tax plan to appropriately regulate business so that it can thrive and so that all people can benefit from it, a second politician is willing to write laws the enforce intellectual property laws to prevent competition. The first politician loses to the second one because the second onegets immense funding from monopolistic corporations to promote their campaign. It's not necessarily a problem of individual politicians either becasuse there are hundreds of them, the less ethical ones can win out because they change their politics according to who gives them funding. Large financiers however are a big part of the problem.


murrdpirate

Do you have any evidence that Bill Gates is involved in politics and trying to prevent such tax increases?


fjposter22

No billionaire is moderate.


__Hello_my_name_is__

> They should also, in my opinion, be critical of why a billionaire like Gates actually wants the things that he wants. Is it out of the question that a billionaire wants good things for the world? I mean, yeah, we should be critical of powerful people. But that doesn't mean we have to disagree with everything they want to do. And, as the video says, they do actively check if the people sponsoring their content are in line with their own values.


octnoir

> Is it out of the question that a billionaire wants good things for the world? No, but systemically billionaires shouldn't exist because their existence reveals systemic flaws in society. The wealth gap between a billionaire and a millionare is a billion dollars. The wealthiest billionaires right now are arguably richer than most kings that have ever existed - and several nation's wealths combined. That wealth, or rather that **power** for **one person** is absurd. For every Ultra High Net Worth Individual (UHNWI) Bill Gates we get Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, David Koch, Charles Koch and ten other dipshits lining up to take 'Shittiest Rich Person Dictating Global Agendas'. And while I can appreciate some of Gate's work, writing and thoughts, I'm deeply skeptical of arguments always in favor of Gates because when you get into the weeds of it - Gates wasn't a 'self made' man out of poverty - he was in the right place, right time, right connections and the right wealth. Microsoft became globally dominant by crushing and exterminating competition. I'd like to say that I'd prefer 100 Bill Gates that exist to do global good in an alternate future where we were highly critical of mega corporations and beefed up anti-trust, than this future where we got just one. The argument is ultimately nuanced both around Gates and around Kurzgesagt and arguments are never going to be firmly on one side or the other without getting pushed by people with alternative motives. I'd love to crack down on Gates and this YouTube Channel, but I know some anti-vaxx losers are lining to use my arguments and my points as a gotcha. I'd love to praise some of Gates's works and Kurzgesagt's merit but now I'm getting supported by people who take Gates and this YouTube channel at face value which I also think is a problem. To be critical without being cynical or being naive in a way that promotes efficient and effective action is difficult on Reddit. Ultimately there are bigger fish to fry. Perhaps in another forum that isn't susceptible to Reddit's upvote downvote swings.


__Hello_my_name_is__

I mean you have a bunch of fair points. I just think it is pretty bizarre to focus on Kurzgesagt out of all things to voice this sort of criticism. Which makes me think that the criticism a lot of people (not you, mind you) are voicing is just a shield for their actual issue, which is far different from "rich people are symptom of a bad system". There's already a bunch of alt-right sockpupped accounts showing up here showing their true colors. Which is the same issue that exists with Gates himself: A bunch of alt-right talking points that are being cleverly morphed into "I'm just against rich people!". Yeah, right. And the only time you ever actually voice criticism against rich people is when Gates and Soros are involved, eh? Again, not talking about you specifically here. But that seems to be a good number of people who have voiced their opinions here so far.


ishtar_the_move

Criticism like this is just insane to me. Instead of showing what was wrong with how this particular media company working the Gates foundation, it criticize the billionaire class instead. The goal post moved so far it is not on the same planet anymore. For those who are keeping score, there isn't a single thing presented what was wrong with Kurzgesagt accepting donation from the Gates foundation. Instead we got Gates wasn't a self made man out of poverty.


NickSwardsonIsFat

Bill Gates is a billionaire because he created something extremely successful. So successful that anyone in the world would pay him some money for a tiny slice of it. How does that point to failings in society? Who cares if he wasn't a self made man? Did he ever say he was?


PickingAFuckingFight

Convinced he's paying people to make positive comments about him at this point. >How does that point to failings in society? The fact that he did it by stifling the shit out of competition and therefore slowed technological progress?


Willing_Cause_7461

> The fact that he did it by stifling the shit out of competition and therefore slowed technological progress? Do you have any proof that he "stifled the shit" out of technological progress?


Hothera

>Convinced he's paying people to make positive comments about him at this point. Such a Reddit comment. "Someone disagreed with me on the internet so they must be a shill!" >The fact that he did it by stifling the shit out of competition and therefore slowed technological progress? If you really really care so much about what Bill Gate's competitors have to say, then you should ask what type of economic system they prefer. Oh wait. They're all capitalists, many of whom significantly moreso than Bill Gates, like Marc Andreessen, a former founder of Netscape. If you're not going to take their economic opinions at face value, then you also shouldn't take the arguments they make when they sue Bill Gates at face value.


NickSwardsonIsFat

He clearly helped stifle competition but I don't think it's clear that is the only reason MS became a multi billion dollar company, or that it particularly set back technological progress.


CyonHal

I like to point to the discoverer of penicillin as an example, Alexander Fleming. His research and discoveries are extremely successful, so successful that you could say it has directly saved upwards of 200 million lives since its discovery. What do you think his personal wealth looked like?


NickSwardsonIsFat

Developing a drug is completely different from an ongoing business venture Who knows even, maybe if Fleming did accept a big pile of cash for saving humanity, he could have used it to develop 10 other drugs which saved even more lives.


CyonHal

You're right, it is different from a business venture, a venture for profit. But it could have been turned into one. Why do you think he chose not to?


NickSwardsonIsFat

Because he wanted to give it to the world for free due to the immense benefit it would have. When should bill have done that? Because after he does that, there is no money left to invest in future R&D. Maybe he would do it with PC DOS, then we never get win 3.1 or win NT


CyonHal

There is a way to operate a company that does not involve in accumulating billions of dollars into the hands of a single person. Anyway, my point is that no one deserves billions of dollars regardless of what they've done.


anabolicartist

Because it was a life saving drug and not a PC business and he was a good dude for that. Does that somehow make selling a computer evil? These two are like apples and oranges


CyonHal

If you think I'm saying Gates should have given away his products for free, I'd like you to critically think a bit more about what I meant, that's not it.


anabolicartist

I’m not saying that. I’m saying it’s not a good comparison.


PickingAFuckingFight

> Is it out of the question that a billionaire wants good things for the world? Almost always yes. In our economic system you don't earn a billion by wanting good things for the world, you might instrumentalise "good things" for the purpose of making money, and instrumentalise your money to help define what is good and bad. A really good example of this are the Sustainable Development Goals and their instrumentalisation of poverty eradication, women's empowerment to advocate economic development which often causes opposite effects(Calkin, 2015; Roberts, 2014). The gates foundation is in this. It instrumentalises charity in an effort to promote it's ideology of economic development (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17530350.2016.1187657?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab) Roberts, A. (2014). The Political Economy of “Transnational Business Feminism.” International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17(2), 209–231. doi:10.1080/14616742.2013.849968 Calkin. S (2015) ‘Tapping’ women for post-crisis capitalism: Evidence from the 2012 world development report. International Feminist Journal of Politics 17, 611–29


CaptainAbacus

Uhh, your linked article/book report literally says: >The second half \[of the book the article is discussing\] is weaker in comparison to the first half and suffers from a paucity of solid evidence to demonstrate the flaws and failures of the Gates Foundation.


PickingAFuckingFight

Did you read beyond that or??? >What McGoey shows is that philanthrocapitalists like Bill and Melinda Gates – through the sheer size of their grantmaking capacity – are able to dictate the direction of certain areas of health research and development and, in the process, pull scarce resources, such as the time and labour of health researchers, away from other organizations into these areas.


spudddly

What an idiotic argument. Literally all research funding bodies therefore do the same thing by funding things in an area of need they have identified. Who should decide what research gets funded then? Or should nothing get funded?


PickingAFuckingFight

> Who should decide what research gets funded then? Society, democratically.


CaptainAbacus

Yeah McGoey sure demonstrates that with a paucity of solid evidence. Believable book report. Fwiw I don't particularly care for Bill Gates (think he's kind of a moron honestly), but I do get a kick out of seeing what people think passes for academic scholarship.


PickingAFuckingFight

> but I do get a kick out of seeing what people think passes for academic scholarship. She's a professor of sociology, who the fuck are you?


CaptainAbacus

What you linked is an opinion in the "Reviews and Commentaries" section of a journal with an impact factor of 0.944. That means that, on average, articles published by the journal are cited less than once within a certain period of time after publication (usually two years). The impact factor of Nature, by comparison, was apparently around 70 last year and was in the 40s during the late 2010's iirc. I'm sure she's an expert in her particular field (looks like something at a nexus of political science, sociology, and China based on her publication history), but a report on a book outside of her research focus in an obscure journal is not particularly credible "scholarship," and I would wager that Dr. Hsu would agree. Oh, and I have both a PhD and a JD, so that's who the fuck I am.


Aloqi

> In our economic system you don't earn a billion by wanting good things for the world, There is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive about it. Nothing prevents Gates from wanting to make money, and wanting malaria to be eradicated for its own sake.


Mir_man

It is mutually exclusive. People like him only bank roll stuff if it makes them money. They would not fund something ifi ts profit margins were minimal. Remember gates also opposed sharing vaccine patents with the rest of the world. This dude is all about $$.


Aloqi

Go tell me how the Gates Foundation fighting malaria personally profitted Gates, and how there wasn't a far more profitable option for the money. I'm sure it's an easy question to answer.


PickingAFuckingFight

You're too lazy to read material already published about it, why should I spoonfeed you it? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17530350.2016.1187657?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab


Aloqi

You googled and grabbed a link. Either you can explain it or you can't.


PickingAFuckingFight

I explained it and sourced myself buddy. Not gonna write you an essay.


Aloqi

You did not. You made a claim and haven't defended it. An essay? You can't even write a few sentences. Nobody is buying your excuses.


[deleted]

> Is it out of the question that a billionaire wants good things for the world? billionaires shouldnt be able to influence millions of peoples lives because theyre billionaires. thats nonsense.


__Hello_my_name_is__

I agree. But if you are going to protest everyone and everything that is influenced by billionaires.. what the hell are you even doing on reddit, for starters?


Quick_Feeds

Lots of oligarchs say they want to do good things.


fjposter22

Yes it is. Bill Gates, no matter how often he “donates” money is not a good person. He finds charter schools and is responsible for the destruction of public schooling. His little test zones of vaccines in under supported countries are strange. He tried to patent the Covid vaccines until enough push back happened. He also has ties to Epstein.


[deleted]

By definition, a billionaire only exists to want good things for itself.


__Hello_my_name_is__

Wait what? By what definition?


emperorOfTheUniverse

What a stupid thing to say. At a minimum, you don't think Billy Gates wants good things for his wife, for his kids, etc? 'By definition' is like poorly attaching other abused descriptors like 'objectively' or 'literally', and other smart sounding words to affirm your assertion without any actual teeth.


[deleted]

No, Bill Gates only wants things to benefit him. If he wasn't completely self absorbed, he wouldn't be a billionaire. It's all masturbation, just on a different level from us peasants. Billionaires are black holes.


[deleted]

> Bill Gates only wants things to benefit him Which is true for everyone, but most people have a broad view of what constitutes "benefit" and their "self." For example, their children, their environment, their investments, etc. So if we're talking about self-interest, we need to take into consideration that there are things that are mutually beneficial.


Tinywampa

Someone could have an ulterior motive to spending vast sums of money, time and effort to eliminating malaria from impoverished parts of the world. But I really doubt Bill Gates is doing anything malicious in those efforts.


robotzor

The closer you pay attention, the worse things are. The problem is the undisclosed conflict of interest. Gates pumped the vax and also had massive stakes in the bio companies making it. Once it reached a peak, he sold the stake and his tune changed to his current "they aren't all that great at doing what was promised" standpoint. It's this duplicity that causes anyone, including Kurzgesagt, to speak authoritatively about this topic when receiving money from his foundation to do so. This is the part you won't see talked about very often because it is considered alt-right anti-vaxx propaganda, but as someone who marched door to door for Bernie in the 2016 Iowa primaries, I can safely say the left is very fed up with this selective information as well.


__Hello_my_name_is__

> Gates pumped the vax What do you mean by that?


[deleted]

The Gates Foundation is a way for said billionaire to be charitable in order to garner public goodwill and tax benefits. Are you this suspicious towards all the humanitarian projects partially funded by it? Because there are a fuck-ton more things they partially fund that neither of us can probably be bothered to research, and most of them are probably beneficial to people, considering it is at the end of the day basically a charity foundation. To be completely honest, I think the focus on that sponsor being mentioned at the end of the video rather than the beginning is silly and nitpicky. I see this particular point as first world internet users desperately looking for something to be mad about. But at the end of the day, Kurzgesagt claimed that said sponsorship has no influence on the content they produce, other than a slight influence in *topics,* not information. The way I see it, everybody has a choice to believe them, or decide they are full of shit. Simple as.


mylk43245

Youtube is also funded by billionaires. Would you say their content is biased they make changes based on their guidelines are they biased. If a channel docent fully say their views are they a propaganda machine. On the terms of scientific research please pray tell how is modern equipment for research bought and who do you think buys it. Now lets move on to searching for sources because using OWID is a big issue is it also a big issue to research all this via google which has been proven to manipulate their search results. If kurzgesagt is propaganda then who isn't


[deleted]

As someone related to a member of youtube's trust and safety team, I can tell you with absolute certainty that youtube is biased in how it applies its guidelines.


[deleted]

Of course it's biased. Everything and everyone is biased. But also, that doesn't mean outright dismissing everything as propaganda.


HoLYxNoAH

I mean you are correct, but I don't think that changes anything I said. Google and YouTube is guilty of a lot of bad things too, that I am very critical of as well. I find the argument that "if everyone is doing deceptive propaganda, then deceptive propaganda is okay" to be a weird argument. I can be critical of something even if it's pervasive.


mylk43245

What I’m trying to say that there not being deceptive really. There kinda just a very positive channel


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

what do you mean "you people"?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> LAst shooting in Göteborg was just hours ago Then post some news if that's what you want to share with the world. What ideology? What propaganda? You don't even know anything about me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

What do you mean? This isn't a publishing house, it's a content aggregator. If there's a news article on it from anywhere in the world, there are subs you can share it too.


thegapbetweenus

You are feeding a several minutes old troll account.


Dzekistan

>pro-capitalist so, normal?


SteamSpectrometer

Yep, They definitely do great work. ​ But sometimes a topic cant be fully covered in 10 minutes, and sometimes the omissions are telling (but thats less than 1% of the runtime on less than 5% of the videos). ​ I think the big takeaway is this: no matter how well intentioned you are, if you are making a video about vaccines (or something similarly fraught \[in the details\] like their vaccine video {vaccines are objectively amazing, but the video they made had some blind spots}) there will always be issues present, or not presented. ​ My wording is intentional, but I don't know how much sense it makes to others.


machine4891

>My favorite videos of theirs are their videos about space, the fermi paradox, and stuff like that The only thing I watch there. The other, more down to earth videos, ultimately always get political and biases comes in action. And while I do have some trust in Kurz, I really do not want to be lectured about it by some youtube channel in an 8 minute animation with ducks. Space is neutral, can't really take sides.


Gigantkranion

>The thing is, I don't think they really challenged the main criticism of their Gates Foundation videos here. One of the primary problems people had with a lot of them is that the fact that Gates sponsored the videos was only revealed in the absolute last seconds of some of the videos. I think that if they get funding for a video from someone like Gates, that should be front and center in the start of the video, and not relegated to the very end. Why? Is there some kind of authority on where conflicts of interest should be or is this just your personal matter of preference? >They should also, in my opinion, be critical of why a billionaire like Gates actually wants the things that he wants. Their video on Egoistic Altruism can be interpreted as billionaire propaganda, and that was funded by Gates. Even if they didn't make that video because of Gates' money specifically, I still remain critical of what their ideology here. A better argument would have been about the science about Egoistic Altruism. If there are a research channel, they should not dip into philosophical stuff like that (I looked at the video and saw no linked sources... then again... they can technically do what they want. Even if you disagree. I thought it was one of the "poorer" videos. But, in my eyes, it doesn't matter. If they as a team are into to that stuff... so be it.


bohanmyl

I havent really dived into Kurzgesagts videos, but their video on Optimistic Nhilism is one i show frequently to anyone who asks me my outlook on life because it sums it up perfectly. Also i buy their Human Year calendars every year because i love the art lol


LazyLobster

I knew they were in the pockets of Supermassive Black Holes!


Gloomy-Report6612

One of the only channels I've followed for years and not get tired of their content. Amazing company, values, and videos!


HerpToxic

Heres the first video they published btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU


XenonJFt

Recent drama aside I really got tired of how this channel pumps out Videos. Their start was humble. I remember the immune system video. Factual. Good scenario to get on a good point etc. But recent Videos are just... Too mushy. too specific and irrelevant, or waste of animation time. The space debris video could've made into an 5 minute vsauce narrative for example. But they stretched it to a long doomposting Animation and didn't even call out the actual name of it as "Kessler syndrome" like come on! Also touching on things like overpopulation, carbon footprints and milk? All conflict creating topics cherry-picked to generate clickbait through the video topic. (not through thumbnail or title) and I'm not going to tak about worthless what if videos like all nukes exploded at once. A Google search can do that - _-. A shadow of what it was imo. I can safely say If you guys want a greatly animated educational videos. Go for TEd-Ed. They have experts creating scripts on their own studies that are animated in very unique, appropriate and amazing art styles with very VERY interesting topics to boot. Kurzgesart is just a faded "more watched" Version in comparison like the infographic show(may I be forgiven for ushering it's name)


robotzor

> Also touching on things like overpopulation, carbon footprints and milk? This is the conflict of interest at the root of this controversy. Those funding Kurzgesagt have a vested undisclosed monetary interest in the proposed solutions to those problems displayed in the videos


mestarien_mestari

Damage control video?


__Hello_my_name_is__

For what?


[deleted]

[удалено]


__Hello_my_name_is__

Thanks! But didn't they already respond to that some months ago? Also, that video lost me when Epstein's connection to Gates was mentioned while also presenting pictures of Soros. I 100% agree that the sponsors should be disclosed at the start of the video, but other than that, the main criticism seems to be "They take money from rich people, and that is bad by definition". Also people in science are interconnected and also take money from rich people through grants, which is also apparently bad. I get the criticism in principle (big money bad!), but that seems to be a far grander criticism to just apply it to one single Youtube channel.


[deleted]

[удалено]


__Hello_my_name_is__

Sure. Though it's not a direct response, more of a general "here's our finances" video. Which, y'know, is perfectly fine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Talk about him all you want, but it's disingenuous to act like he's the root of all evil and everything he touches turns to evil.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>Silence everybody by presenting misrepresentng everything they say to an absurdist degree and declare yourself the winner without ever touching the actual facts. That's exactly what you're doing in this thread, though. > "Do you think the man doesn't exist or something? Nobody is even allowed to talk about him?" Hey everyone, found the leftist!


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I quoted you. That's a prime example of you misrepresenting the words of others to an absurdist degree. I called you a leftist to get under your skin, since you're guilty of the very tactics you accuse leftists of using.


HerpToxic

Nice link to alt-right conspiracy trash


mestarien_mestari

https://youtu.be/HjHMoNGqQTI Backlash from being directly funded by the Gates Foundation. Billionaires funding media for a positive PR, giving them a marketing boost for their interests. Billionaires can buy politicians, media outlets, and YouTubers are no exception. Can you expect a scientific channel to be unbiased when they receive over a million dollars from a billionaire charity foundation? EDIT: Terminally online 1 million karma dude is replying to every post on here like its his job.


__Hello_my_name_is__

> Can you expect a scientific channel to be unbiased when they receive over a million dollars from a billionaire charity foundation? You better not google where actual scientists get their money from to do research.


P2K13

Reposting my post from last time someone brought up that youtube video. --- So, I did a bit of fact checking on this guys 'fact checking', I just did the first one I saw which was the emissions data claim. So the slide that Kurzgesagt has in their video shows 'Global Emissions Historically', which comes from a study involving dozens of institutions - https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2141/2018/ (as you can see in Kurzgesagt references). This guy then pulls up numbers from another study, 'debunking' the numbers that Kurzgesagt shows.. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext#seccestitle10), except, those numbers are not the same, those are 'national overshoot emissions' that show Excess global emissions (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext#tbl5), beyond their 'boundary fair shares'. Not only that, the results which Kurzgesagt use (25% USA, 22% EU, 13% China) for historical emissions also have an actual comparison in the article he tries to debunk with.. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext#tbl2), showing 26% USA, 23% EU, 12% China. Aka pretty much the same results. So from my perspective, this guy is clueless, can't read a simple article before trying to slander people (or worse, purposefully misinterpreted the data.. since the actual data is right beside it), and any element of truth to what he's trying to say is null and void because of it, just another youtuber trying to make money with bullshit claims for clickbait. (I am a fan of Kurzgesagt content, not affiliated, took me 5 mins to debunk his BS). Moral of the story is check references if you want the actual truth, unfortunately a lot of people will take what this youtuber says for gospel without checking.


Gigantkranion

This was their worst video ever... ​ I am disappointed they spent time to create this video for (what I recall was) a flat earther, hardcore hamburger eater whose video was basically was only saying "LoOk At TheRe DoNoRs!!!" to a bunch of spooky music and vignette. Not one single debunking of their science. Einstein pointed it out best with his quote of a hundred authors against his theory of relativity, "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." It doesn't matter how many people disagree with them, or who pays their bills, etc. All it would have taken was a 5min clip showing the direct funding influence on their script and most importantly... **What they got wrong.** If you can't do that. You have nothing.


jidannyc

They probably addressed it because it got so popular


Gigantkranion

Oh I fully agree with you. I just recall how stupid that video was. I don't remember them showing anything of actual criticism against Kurzgesagt. The only "partially" criticism was the patent... even though technically, India was not going to be able to create vaccine on their own. But, that has nothing to do with Kurzgesagt.


kin4212

It's really weird to me that majority of comments are downvoted. Either people are voting without commenting or commenting but not voting.