Coffeebreak just wanted to make a hitpiece. I doubt he cared as much about facts and actual impartiality than he did about making a takedown for drama and views.
a company that thrives off youtube views, likes, and merch is of course going to do hasty damage control
whether or not phillip is lying about restructuring their content to be more accurate seems still a bit too early to judge, thats something we might have to review their vids of the past year or two to see if theyd gotten any better in it, as he claims 2017 was when he regretted the "addictions" piece
>learn someone does something bad
>plan on publicly shaming/taking them down for their bad thing
>talk to them in an effort to get more information about it
>the person admits to the fault before you can make your video attacking them
>get mad because they "stole your idea"
is this what happened or am I missing something? I dont understand coffee's point at all.
Regardless, the most honest thing to do is to simply state "actually, we've been working on/thinking about a video on the exactly the same topic" and maybe a time estimate . You don't need to share scripts or anything. To be honest, I think Coffee Break goes too far in detailing what he intends his video to be but does basically do the above things. The last correspondence from Phillip is on the 21st of Feb. Surely work on the "can you trust us video" has progress pretty far at this point unless they're torturing their animators and writers so Phillip could at least return the favour of telling Coffee Break a video on the topic will exist soon.
this is 100% what is happening. CookieBreak is fucking retarded /thread
this image actually makes him look worse, because what it means is that philipp was aware for the time period of TWO YEARS that something was wrong with his research process of skimming over information and containing zero sources, and instead just pooling all his time and resources into cutesy clean shiny graphic design.
TWO YEARS of knowingly potentially misleading people, but he was "working on announcing it". what kind of person does that? just nine months ago they made that bacteriophage video which certain users right here on FP very easily pointed out glaring flaws in that basic knowledge of the subject would have easily avoided. what the hell was he doing in that time? surely, even if he was busy, he could put videos themselves on hold?
Heh, I thought the original Trust video from kurzgesagt was strange.
I think most people trusted Kurzgesagt already(me included), so I was wondering who that video was for.
I noticed them misrepresenting the risks of nuclear energy in one of their videos though, the issues they mentioned would really no longer be a problem with a modern reactor, and one of their points was just completely incorrect.
If they intended to put out a piece to admit to their faults then why didn"t they just say that? How is Coffee Break meant to spin that to damn them? If Coffee Break did intend to solely make a gotcha piece then the most he could do was try to rush it out before Kurzgesagt's video and if that happened, then the email exchange could be used against him.
Kurzgesagt probably panicked and rush to do pre-emptive damage control which, by itself, is understandable but it's done at the expense of a much smaller youtuber and a massive breach of trust. How ironic.
Philipp was also indecisive on the matter because of how the video had apparently helped people. I can see that being a difficult decision because, by taking the video down, have you potentially shut away the chance of people in the future using that video in a positive way? Like I said, I'm not on Team Kurzgesagt, but the logic of "I'm worried about it being a take down piece" isn't that absurd, especially because it's starting to look like that's exactly what CB wanted to do.
Kurzgesagt still has plenty of questions it needs to answer, like the ones you've brought up, but I would also suggest compiling a list of questions for CB, most notably 'Be honest: was this an attempt at a take down piece?'
25 people don't respond to all the emails from what I get, thats not their job, they aren't all sitting in PR.
They might not even go to other people to begin with. I give you that this might not be a smart setup.
He was writing with Phillip specifically. I don't think the other people have access to his emails.
Wondering if you do expect them to actually reply to emails at all or stick to 2 workday replies just because they are a smaller sized company.
Personally I don't which is one of the reasons I think CB acts quite entitled, practically demanding an interview and his time for something Phillip was wary it might be a gotcha piece.
That also leaves out the potential issue of having a already full inbox with other people. Going back to my opinion on how CB is acting very entitled to begin with.
On the email sent on the 21st of Feb, why was there no mention of the "trust us" video when it would have obviously answered some of the questions that Coffee Break was likely to send? At this point, the video would have been well on it's way to be completed.
I can't tell you why but if I were in Phillips shoes I probably wouldn't want to give CB anything that can be twisted for a quick video.
He was suspicious of him fromt he first email.
Seems like the suspicion was warranted especially with CB already twisting the only thing he actually did quote in the video. "I don't want to be quoted".
Then why promise to answer questions or at least imply that you might cooperate? No need to ask details for a video if you're not going to trust what they tell you either.
He didn't twist that. It was a willing misinterpretation of the order in which Kurz responded to CB's points (which is to say, in order).
Coffeebreak is a twat and he totally just wanted to do a fuckin hit piece. That said, you should be wary of pop sci. or pop anything really, anything simplified and made to be popular is not going to be the "whole" truth, its just going to be what gets clicks, like this video! Its also just kinda odd that a company that gets all its money from youtube revenue can just put out a video saying "can you trust us?, yes you can because we deleted two videos that were wrong"
I would say helping an indeterminate amount of people has to be weighed against the fact thousands or millions (I don't remember the view count of the video off hand) people had an incredibly
pseudosciencific idea of addiction placed into their heads. It's impossible to know how many people failed to fact check Kurgz, but we can assume it was a a lot. On top of that both videos essentially
slandered J. Hari with the second one having additional bullshit of "addiction having no chemical component" being a competing idea in the study of addiction which they pulled entirely out of their asses
imho the key take away here regardless of CB's little stunt, you shouldn't take Kurgz videos as anything other than people just skimming google results and TED Talks and animating the script. Really
you should apply this to any channel that's part of "popinfotube" unless they're run by a credible professional in their field because as in my last post: these people have absolutely no accountability,
they could be making up shit that sounds semiplausible and they'll get the same veneer of legitimacy with high view counts and high production values.
After watching the video and reading the entire AMA, I feel like I can say that CB had malicious intent (he DID want to make a hitpiece) and Kurzgesagt simply didn't want to feed him info cause they'd rather address it themselves. Why would a company willfully give someone these answers before they can take action themselves? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. They took the path that was least damaging to them.
CB also misrepresented the e-mails; he said they left the video up because "it was good enough", but the actual e-mail reply can't quite be summed up as that:
It's true that Kurzgesagt could have done things better. For example, they could have mentioned that they got an inquiry from someone (CB) and that they want to use that inquiry as an opportunity to clarify the situation. They shouldn't have said things like "a lot of scientists still believe this", cause that doesn't seem to be the case.
Either way, the take aways I get from this is:
CB wanted to make a hitpiece anyway. But he didn't get to make a hitpiece the way he wanted to, so instead he makes one where he comes across as bitter. He also ironically kind of invalidates his own point by misrepresenting the e-mails. Yeah, you called Kurzgesagt out and kind of relied on the bluff that they wouldn't comply with releasing the e-mails - they complied anyway (having nothing to hide).
Kurzgesagt has learnt that they need to check their information better, which they still don't always do perfectly as demonstrated by the video.
Don't just take one source for granted, soak up as much info as you can if you think a subject is important to you. Whether that be an aspect of science or YouTube drama.
I think he's upset because he believes that kz basically owes him the breaking of the story that they weren't being that honest.
Which ultimately is pretty silly, because cb doesn't own the right to kz's fuckup; if they want to get a statement out there before other people do, that's their prerogative.
I've never liked "In A Nutshell"'s watered down misleading pop-science. It's transparently pseudo-science, this isn't news.
But lord, I also hate this video's overwrought background piano, hot-take editing, and general melodrama. I couldn't sit through it.
YouTube drama, give me a break.
Well these are some real interesting twists and turns
Perhaps he made the decision not to trust CB and that turned out to be the right call.
I guess he was planning to do the interview at first, but by the and had become convinced CB had no charitable intent. Giving out info could have been detrimental.
Sucks that CB's work on the upcoming interview went to waste, but I find it hard to be sympathetic.
I hate posts that start off like that:
"going to get dumbed/downvoted for this but"
"i'm actually on x side so i'm going to get barraged"
if you're so self-conscious about it don't post it you manipulative fuck.
Just wanted to say that really, I don't have anything to add onto actual topic at hand (as per usual) since I'm not really following the situation.
I'd like to mention that I did follow their video's advise as it was mostly kinda solid but I also was aware it wasn't exactly 100% scientific. That's pretty bad though, considering they portray themselves as an educational channel, it's like if you couldn't trust your teachers 100% of the times, you just have to know when they're bullshitting you.
Anywhom I'll just check a TL;DR once this is all blown-over and form some better opinion from there I guess.
His last slide summed it up pretty well:
Oh no, Philip F. and CEP grey is defending Kurzgesagt by calling Coffebreak guy as ridiculous.
I'm going to cautiously lean towards siding with Grey's take on this, knowing how ridiculously isolated he is and how little patience or regard he has for YouTube drama. It takes a lot for him to actually poke out his head and leave a comment on this sort of stuff.
With how badly Grey has gotten things wrong in the past and doubled down on them, I disagree. It's like defending like. He's sticking his neck out because he's guilty of the same thing (Remember his talk about how much money the Royals make the UK? What about parroting *Guns, Germs, and Steel* even though Academics have many, many criticsms of it and it is not regarded as a good history book?)
@Firgof Umbra hey remember when you went on and on about how I needed to cite a third-party source on my stance that kurzgesagt sucks?
I'm kind of baffled that people can't seem to accept that both sides have good points, while also being responsible for bad actions.
Coffee-Break has entirely legitimate points about it being unbelievably convenient for Kurz to have asked him to put his hit-piece on hold long enough for them to get out ahead of it.
Kurz is entirely right that Coffee wanted to put out a one sided hit piece to generate drama, clicks and revenue.
Ignoring Kurz's almost comically irresponsible pop-sci over Coffee's lack of an altruistic motive is like saying that Richard Nixon did nothing wrong because Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were paid reporters who worked for the Washington Post, and made almost unlimited money by being the ones to break the story.
If you are the sort of person who genuinely believes that Russian trolls influenced the 2016 elections, or that junk science on fucking social media is a #1 driver for the anti-vax movement, then you sure as hell better believe that letting Kurz, CGP Grey, Extra History and whoever else lazily peddle genuinely bad science is a morally wrong thing to do. Anything less is wrote hypocrisy. Expecting people to "do deeper research" is the same as expecting Anti-Vax moms or propaganda swilling fascists to just snap out of it and literally discard everything they know for no reason. It's not how people work. It's not how the general population in history ever has ever learned facts. It just doesn't work.
Pop-Sci channels are infotainment at best. They deserve zero accolades for "almost" getting it right. They deserve no breaks because they are "fun." They are for profit ventures, just like Coffee-Break.
He's still waiting.
Oh you think this counts? I don't know what to tell you man.
Kurzgesagt videos have a lot of research behind them, even if the Addiction video was trash. The channel itself is worth a lot, intellectually speaking.
All of their sources are available, if you have your doubts you can just make a video showing exactly where they're wrong.
Wow look at that, like three dozen scientific peer-reviewed papers. And that's from a random video I picked from their front page.
If you or anyone else buying into this "kurzgesagt is all trash because addiction" bull because of this video, then I sincerely hope you reconsider being that stupid.
Or maybe the fact that Phillip was moving between a dozen conventions while recovering from chemo might have maybe possibly delayed wanting to do an interview about what he said from the start is a hit piece.
Do go on presuming to have omniscient understanding of other peoples' minds and thoughts.
Academics have criticism of GGS, and just as many academics openly praise it.
Can you point to me to criticisms of guns germs and steel? First I heard of them, I was told in school that it was a good source and I never really thought about it
I actually went out and googled this myself, because I was curious as well. I'd never read GG&S, but I'd heard it so often cited, argued from or fallen back upon that I genuinely thought it was an academic paper, or dry "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" style text. Imagine my surprise.
This article, one of the first google results, makes pretty compelling arguments for and against GG&S, while also linking other material. Forgive me for not doing something cool like making an inline text link, I never quite got the hang of the commands on newpunch.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.