Maybe not that interesting for everyone here, but I found no better community for this.

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Their quality going down is probably what’s killing their channel. Every video is a merch ad, and the occasional shilling for the fossil fuel industry probably doesn’t help any.

    These things are to be expected when you get bought by private equity, but let’s not be dishonest and say it’s all AI slop that’s killing them.

    • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      When did they shill for fossil fuel? Not saying it didn’t happen, just wondering

      • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        54
        ·
        14 hours ago

        They accepted, and continue to accept a great amount of money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That foundation owns over $11 billion in investments in the fossil fuel industry, including coal-burning utility companies.

        In return, there were quite a few videos that Kurzgesagt admits were funded directly by the Foundation, that exaggerate the positive influence corporations owned by the foundation have had. Videos which the CEO of Kurzgesagt has admitted they probably would not have made if the Foundation had not paid for them.

        • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          They accepted, and continue to accept a great amount of money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

          It’s interesting how any false narrative starts with a granule of truth.

          Kurzgesagt was indeed provided $570,000 in 2015. That money was paid out across the following four years.

          They have not continued to accept any amount of money from the Gates foundation.

        • blakemiller@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          118
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          13 hours ago

          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.

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I don’t care if it’s 80% or 0.8%. if you take money from billionaires to produce specific videos for them as propaganda, then that is shilling for them. there isn’t any way you can spin that to make it not true, but I’m sure you’ll do your very liberal best.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            ·
            8 hours ago

            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).

          • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            45
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 hours ago

            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?

            • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              They accepted, and continue to accept a great amount of money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That foundation owns over $11 billion in investments in the fossil fuel industry, including coal-burning utility companies.

              In return, there were quite a few videos that Kurzgesagt admits were funded directly by the Foundation, that exaggerate the positive influence corporations owned by the foundation have had. Videos which the CEO of Kurzgesagt has admitted they probably would not have made if the Foundation had not paid for them.

              question answered. if you don’t want to accept the CEO of Kurzgesagt word that they would not have made the videos if they hadn’t been paid to, then that isn’t my problem. I’m not here to convince you, and I don’t mind if you don’t believe him.

              • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 hour ago

                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.

                • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  44 minutes ago

                  The Hated One did a video some years ago on the matter, if you’re curious then search it up because they list all their sources for everything including the quote from the CEO.

                • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  I said what I said to voice my own opinion on their channel, I didn’t voice it as an indication that I was interested in debating the matter. I’ve already come to my own conclusions. read their website and their medium, or search up one of the deep dive videos on it if you’re really interested. I’m not going to go too far out of my way to convince anyone, since it doesn’t really harm me in any way if you believe me or not.

                  I also didn’t say anywhere that you should stop watching their videos. you should, however, know who owns and funds every bit of media you consume, so that you can use that information to be healthily skeptical of things people are telling you, just as you are with me. I still watch fern., even though they are owned by PE, because their videos are high quality and mostly free of bias. but I keep in the back of my mind that they have corporate overlords that might want me to believe one thing or another.

          • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I’m trying to think of their ‘fossil fuel shilling’ video and only videos that come to mind are where they say we’re too entrenched in the fossil fuel industry to make a switch to renewable overnight. It’s just not realistic.

            And other than fuel, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of products made from petroleum. Approximately 85% of petroleum is made into fuel. Rest is used to make things like pharma products, paint, pesticides, polymers etc.

            • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              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.

          • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            11 hours ago

            $11 billion

            0.05%

            “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.

            • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I don’t think you understood what they’re saying. Try reading it again.

              Hint: the investment of $11 billion refers to investment of Gates Foundation in fossil fuels.

              • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 hour ago

                per Kurzgesagt,

                For Kurzgesagt sponsorships are an important part of our yearly budget, representing about 20% of our income last year.

                the 0.05% figure is wrong, according to the people making the money themselves.

              • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                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.

    • AceBonobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      16 hours ago

      These things are to be expected when you get bought by private equity,

      Excuse me, what?

      • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        16 hours ago

        They are owned by private equity? It’s pretty common these days for the more popular YT channels. Veritasium, Astrum, Fireship, fern., and Hoog are some other examples. Basically, if it’s a popular YT channel, it’s either owned by PE, in negotiations to be acquired by PE, or pursued by a PE firm in the hopes that they can acquire it. Private equity is accelerating their acquisitions, actually, and they want to control everything that captures the attention of viewers.

        Here’s a video that talks about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ-rRXWhElI

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 hours ago

          No wonder veritasium has felt “off” for me for a good while as well. A few years ago I deliberately stopped watching that channel, seems there was a deeper reason behind my superficial reasons and gut feelings

          • minimum@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            The content is higher-quality, more like a TV production. But it’s still pretty solid. Good analogies and intuitive explanations.

        • hikaru755@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Do you have actual evidence for Kurzgesagt being among PE-owned channels, or are you just extrapolating? Because the video you linked doesn’t mention them, and a quick search didn’t turn up anything about that.

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 hours ago

            if most of your money comes from billionaires and you admit to making propaganda videos for them, you’re owned by private equity. it doesn’t matter how much you or they argue about how that isn’t technically true because it’s not officially on paper.

        • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          There’s an incredible amount of money in those offers. Years ago Linus Tech Tips got an offer of 100m, so I get why people take the money.

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I mean, I would probably sell the channel myself. That’s a lifechanging amount of money. I would buy some land deep in the backcountry, build a little walled village, and invite my family and friends to come live there. Grow our own food, set up some solar panels and wind turbines, buy up plenty of guns and ammo, and see if we couldn’t hunker down and live out the ever more likely downfall of the American economy in relative peace.

          • Rose@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Astrum makes space stuff videos? I dunno, been a while.

            Fireship makes videos about programming. Has series about “(Programming language/Framework) explained in 100 seconds”, for example. I think people are complaining that the channel is slipping into AI dudebroery.

            Hoog is a history/explainer type channel, I think.

            • toynbee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Yes, and also I was able to extrapolate that much, but I was looking for some idea of what kind of content they provided.

              That said, I can look them up; apologies for bothering you on the matter.

              • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                oh, sorry, I misunderstood your question. Veritasium and Astrum are science channels, Fireship covers programming. fern. and Hoog do what I guess you could call deep dive videos on all sorts of topics. everything from how the North Korean king travels, to how that giant hotel aquarium broke several years ago. it’s pretty random with them.

        • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Anyone down voting this should be ashamed of themselves.

          Like deeply and personally ashamed.

          The type of shame that follows them for the rest their lives, because that’s how scummy you’d have to be in order downvote someone shining a light on how private equity is buying out major YouTube channels.

          Something that I was entirely unaware of, and appreciate your comment regarding.

          • hikaru755@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Bringing this general issue up in a thread about Kurzgesagt, without also providing evidence that Kurzgesagt specifically is actually part of that issue, is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading though

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I get it. They like the channel, and don’t want to think that a channel they love could do something they don’t love. Or maybe some of them don’t see it as a bad thing in the first place.

            Me, I’m the opposite. I want to know who owns the media I consume, because I want to know who might be influencing the things I see. It’s always better to have the whole truth, even if that truth hurts. It doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the channel still, it just means you’re better prepared to understand the context of anything that that channel might say. Even cold hard facts with empirical evidence can be propaganda, depending on how it’s presented.