• skulblaka
    link
    fedilink
    191 year ago

    Got any other info on that? You’ve got my attention, but also my doubt.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      341 year ago

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

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22
        edit-2
        1 year 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).

        • @projectd
          link
          English
          61 year 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.

            • @projectd
              link
              English
              21 year 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