That’s really embarrassing that we as a community have chosen, of all possible creators, to deride Kurzgesagt for taking money from The Gates Foundation. It’s 0.05% of their holdings. ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE. Which, by the way, is down from 6% in the past after public concern — yes, a whopping 6%. Scourge of the earth, locked out of heaven: The Gates Foundation. Those computer nerds strike again. And we choose to punish a great content contributor for that. Shameful display of purity politics.
Yeah. It seems like a ridiculous accusation to make. Bro couldn’t even answer the question about example of shilling so they had to pivot into the crime of taking money from a foundation to produce high quality educational content.
I did a few searches and while I didn’t find that quote from Kurzgesagt’s CEO, I did find the contribution listed from a decade ago on the Gates foundation website. $570,000 paid out over four years. They also gave NPR $2,000,000 the next year.
Since I didn’t find the CEOs quote you’ve mentioned, I can only question the context around it. Would those videos not have been made because the Gates foundation specifically tied the funding to those videos being created? Or would they not have been made because Kurzgesagt didn’t have the money to do so otherwise?
Regardless, Kurzgesagt is a private company and if they wanted to conceal hidden agendas by corporate contributors, they would just keep quiet - not openly acknowledge that they made content with money given to them by some larger organisation.
If we’re going to denounce any group of people that are connected via Bacon’s Law to a disastrous corporate industry, the moral high ground will be unachievable for the entirety of our species.
I don’t really do online fights anymore. I check in on Lemmy twice a week max for a maybe a few minutes tops. I’d suggest getting involved with your local community as a great way to channel your energy rather than reply 5m after I posted a new comment. Take care ✌🏻
the CEO of Kurzgesagt word that they would not have made the videos if they hadn’t been paid to
This on its own proves nothing bad. Some videos just require a bigger budget to make and can’t be made on their otherwise limited budget. Or the topic is just lower priority due to writer interests. If they were forced into covering specific topics then that’s a different story, but I haven’t seen any evidence that was the case.
The problem is when the contributors influence what the videos say, in contradiction to data.
Kurzgesagt’s video on +2° / +3° / +4° over the global mean isn’t going to be so bad video was conspicuous to me, and is in fact, based on fossil-fuel industry rhetoric, rather than climatology estimations (which tell us over +1.5° is going to fuck us, and is).
It’s allegedly a documentary, not fiction. It should make sense from beginning to end.
Sounds like you feel the need to defend Kurzgesagt for sentimental reasons, and since they’re presenting themselves as a source for accurate information, that just won’t do.
They link all their sources. So regardless of where their funding comes from I’d rather have a good source of information instead of a non-existent perfect source.
even people who needs to use petrolatum(aka protroleum) comes from it, for thier dry skin, plus it used in many topical medications. topical ointment medication is more potent than the cream forms.
It’s important to have a coalition of support and so I won’t single anyone out, hence I used the word “we”. I have to assume others share their opinion about Kurz. But the larger point is that this is classic left infighting and, ironically, it stalls actual progress. Before we can be good at something, we have to be bad at something.
Does any of that matter in this situation, anyway? Exaggerating their content in exchange for money already places question on their reliability as an educational content creator.
Hint: the investment of $11 billion refers to investment of Gates Foundation in fossil fuels.
Well, considering these exact words were used:
That foundation owns over $11 billion in investments in the fossil fuel industry, including coal-burning utility companies.
What can I say but duh. If I misunderstood anything, it was the comment I replied to, which was unclear about the “0.05% down from 6%” detail, and seemed to be associating that with the $11 billion figure by context.
But hey, nice deflection, and super cool of you to be that rude about it, too.
That’s really embarrassing that we as a community have chosen, of all possible creators, to deride Kurzgesagt for taking money from The Gates Foundation. It’s 0.05% of their holdings. ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE. Which, by the way, is down from 6% in the past after public concern — yes, a whopping 6%. Scourge of the earth, locked out of heaven: The Gates Foundation. Those computer nerds strike again. And we choose to punish a great content contributor for that. Shameful display of purity politics.
Yeah. It seems like a ridiculous accusation to make. Bro couldn’t even answer the question about example of shilling so they had to pivot into the crime of taking money from a foundation to produce high quality educational content.
How dare they?
deleted by creator
I did a few searches and while I didn’t find that quote from Kurzgesagt’s CEO, I did find the contribution listed from a decade ago on the Gates foundation website. $570,000 paid out over four years. They also gave NPR $2,000,000 the next year.
Since I didn’t find the CEOs quote you’ve mentioned, I can only question the context around it. Would those videos not have been made because the Gates foundation specifically tied the funding to those videos being created? Or would they not have been made because Kurzgesagt didn’t have the money to do so otherwise?
Regardless, Kurzgesagt is a private company and if they wanted to conceal hidden agendas by corporate contributors, they would just keep quiet - not openly acknowledge that they made content with money given to them by some larger organisation.
If we’re going to denounce any group of people that are connected via Bacon’s Law to a disastrous corporate industry, the moral high ground will be unachievable for the entirety of our species.
deleted by creator
Thank you for linking that video and doing what you can to share these conflict free sources you hold in such esteem.
deleted by creator
Still waiting on that citation. (not of your own prior post)
deleted by creator
I just think we need to be criticizing more important things than this. Kurz is not the organization we should be spending our outrage on.
deleted by creator
I don’t really do online fights anymore. I check in on Lemmy twice a week max for a maybe a few minutes tops. I’d suggest getting involved with your local community as a great way to channel your energy rather than reply 5m after I posted a new comment. Take care ✌🏻
deleted by creator
This on its own proves nothing bad. Some videos just require a bigger budget to make and can’t be made on their otherwise limited budget. Or the topic is just lower priority due to writer interests. If they were forced into covering specific topics then that’s a different story, but I haven’t seen any evidence that was the case.
The problem is when the contributors influence what the videos say, in contradiction to data.
Kurzgesagt’s video on +2° / +3° / +4° over the global mean isn’t going to be so bad video was conspicuous to me, and is in fact, based on fossil-fuel industry rhetoric, rather than climatology estimations (which tell us over +1.5° is going to fuck us, and is).
That’s a pretty dishonest take from that video honestly.
Feel free to explain it in better terms. TBH, I watched the first half and quit in disgust.
“I’m going to watch half the movie then complain about it not making sense and having a bad ending”
It’s allegedly a documentary, not fiction. It should make sense from beginning to end.
Sounds like you feel the need to defend Kurzgesagt for sentimental reasons, and since they’re presenting themselves as a source for accurate information, that just won’t do.
They link all their sources. So regardless of where their funding comes from I’d rather have a good source of information instead of a non-existent perfect source.
deleted by creator
even people who needs to use petrolatum(aka protroleum) comes from it, for thier dry skin, plus it used in many topical medications. topical ointment medication is more potent than the cream forms.
It’s not we, just notorious loser, cryptagion.
It’s important to have a coalition of support and so I won’t single anyone out, hence I used the word “we”. I have to assume others share their opinion about Kurz. But the larger point is that this is classic left infighting and, ironically, it stalls actual progress. Before we can be good at something, we have to be bad at something.
deleted by creator
Okay tankie
deleted by creator
Okay tankie
Being banned for being anti-tankie makes you the Tankie for removing spam!
What an unbelievable coincidence. Really makes you wonder – alt, or lapdog? 🤔
Neither one, dingus. Not everyone who disagrees with you is paid or a bot or whenever.
Nobody said anything about bots or getting paid lol
deleted by creator
“A small loan of a million dollars.”
Does any of that matter in this situation, anyway? Exaggerating their content in exchange for money already places question on their reliability as an educational content creator.
deleted by creator
Well, considering these exact words were used:
What can I say but duh. If I misunderstood anything, it was the comment I replied to, which was unclear about the “0.05% down from 6%” detail, and seemed to be associating that with the $11 billion figure by context.
But hey, nice deflection, and super cool of you to be that rude about it, too.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m afraid the world will be moving on while you wait for perfection.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator