Comment on kurzgesagt – AI Slop Is Killing Our Channel
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 16 hours agoThey 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.
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.
you basically confirmed the narrative isn’t false.
blakemiller@lemmy.world 15 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.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 hour ago
spreading corporate propaganda is not exactly virtuous.
for only a small fraction of their revenue in return?
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 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).
null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 4 hours ago
It’s not we, just notorious loser, cryptagion.
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 4 hours ago
lol still salty, I see. that’s OK, boo-boo, I still love you.
null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 4 hours ago
Okay tankie
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 14 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@anarchist.nexus 4 hours ago
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 bee 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 3 hours 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.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Still waiting on that citation. (not of your own prior post)
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 4 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.
TheBat@lemmy.world 12 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 10 hours ago
even people who needs to use petrolatum(aka protroleum) comes from it, for thier dry skin.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
“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.
TheBat@lemmy.world 13 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@anarchist.nexus 4 hours ago
per Kurzgesagt,
the 0.05% figure is wrong, according to the people making the money themselves.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
Well, considering the 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.