• @ImplyingImplications
    34•7 months ago

    They received money from the Gates Foundation so now right wing nut jobs believe all their videos are mind control propaganda.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzechEnglish
      22•7 months ago

      The video in question

      • was on climate change optimism
      • primarily suggested experimental carbon capture system that Bill Gates had invested in as potential solutions
      • only mentioned the sponsor in the end screen so most people did not notice

      Supposedly, several other videos were sponsored by foundations and exhibit similarly subtle biases.

      Also, lots of their research comes from their partnered publication, Our World in Data, which was sponsored by philantropists and found to be biased and unreliable on many accounts.

      Does it mean they are as crazy and oblivious to science as PragerU? Not even close. However, their claims and presentation should be treated with a pinch of salt even if they provide footnotes. Personally, I find the biases too slight to matter – I would not really watch their videos anyway (I don’t like the pacing, language, obsession with cleanliness and animation style).

      • @[email protected]English
        6•7 months ago

        Could you reference some of these claims that our world in data was found to be biased? Sounds like a pretty solid judgement was made, but a cursory search didn’t yield anything untoward. Maybe if it’s definite, you could update the Wikipedia entry to reference the controversy, as that’s always a good place to signpost that kind of thing.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzechEnglish
          5•7 months ago

          Not now, I don’t really have time for that. I suggest you look at this Medium article / opinion piece (?). Sorry that I cannot go deeper into this rabbit hole with you but I need to sleep before a busy week. I am pretty sure it is not as deep and twisted as some think it is.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•7 months ago

            Thanks, that’s a really interesting piece. I don’t interpret that it’s really about bias though, he’s gone through to offer to some more ideas for context. The takeaway seems to be that while the OWID stats are accurate, historical context changes that changes the way people lived and would be good to add - it’s really clever, but I don’t think there’s much to suggest there’s anything nefarious. In times where we are presented with outright lies, it still seems to me to be a source which shines light