I want to add though, that it's still possible to have selective biss even with good quality stuff. Kind of like how only certain studies are funded and those studies are still good.

I remember when kurzgesagt was first starting, I remember wishing all my school science videos were that good on those subjects.

Sure, they probably impart bias - and that VERY MUCH SHOULD GET FIXED - but kurz is still way better having been made.

Calling them slop, then, just doesn't seem an appropriate criticism. Biased, funded by Bill Gates. Maybe.

But as far as billionaires go, at least it isn't fucking Musk. I know I know, we shouldn't settle for that, and I'm not proposing we do. But, as long as we're discussing bias and accuracy, I think it's important to try to be less biased and be more accurate, even with our criticisms, and kurzgesagt is not infallible or perfect, and shouldn't be treated as such - but then, neither is either private nor public education. It doesn't mean we should condemn the entire structure or system, it means we should hold them accountable and fix it.

Unless there's systemic issues (and yes, there are, with being funded by ANY big power, be it a state power or private), I think we should merely try to do our best and be more deliberate with trying to do better.

I have a weird system for solving a totally unrelated challenge, and it goes like this: if you veto, you must propose the next suggestion (it's about choosing what/where to eat).

So, in this context, I think it important to not only be more pointed in our criticisms, but potentially even suggest solutions, rather than just complain.

For kurz, then, instead of saying "being funded by Bill Gates is bad and obviously imparts bias" we should a) identity said bias (which it looks like people are wonderfully doing already, which is fantastic), and b) suggest what they should do instead of accepting money from Bill Gates.

On b, one thing they could do could be to turn it down, on reason of not wanting to take on strings or impart even perceived bias. To remain impartial. They could, alternatively, try to prove or create some kind of system to open criticisms about bias or hold a forum regarding said information, since they've grown in size so much.

I dunno. I'm trying to have an open mind here. I think it's important to hold good information sources accountable, but I also think that anything we can do to oppose the insane, blatant far right agenda full of actual, EXTREME bias is a good start. I don't think we should settle, but I'm also hesitant to hamstring anything that goes against that, for now.

The smoking is awesome video is just a clickbait title, the video's script is about all the ways smoking feels good but harms you. It's not pro-smoking