An example of where this has happened is shown in this video by Tom Nicholas: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw
The TLDR is:
- Capitalism if wildly unpopular with young people in many western countries.
- The world economic forum is an organization funded by mega-corporations/capitalists.
- The world economic forum pay for a video to be made by a creator that is popular with young people in western countries.
- In this video there is some kind of bullshit/propaganda about how capitalism can work when you have this vague concept of stakeholders.
The OP of the other video engaged in the comments, good discussion from all sides (at times) regardless of the position.
It’s definitely an interesting topic, I like the idea that we’re seeing a possible rebrand due to others not buying into the status quo - it doesn’t feel like that at times over here (USA based view)
Thanks, I didn’t know he responded to the video. I have read the comments and don’t think they excuse (or really try to address) the main concerns in Tom’s video.
He says this:
Hey there so I finally watched your video. You raise some strong points (I had only seen the thumbnail when someone sent it to me and figured it was a conspiracy theory about me.) I’m deleting my original comment cuz it’s snarky and undermining. Not warranted for what seems like a well constructed set of arguments against my WEF video. You raise useful points about ethics and journalism in a YouTube context. The short answer to your concerns is that 1. I may not agree with you on where the ethical line is in journalism and working with think tanks to tell stories I feel are compelling. And 2. The video I made with the WEF was the product of me having read a pre order copy of the book (cuz I like books like this) and pitching the WEF on sponsoring a video on the topic of the duck graph. They agreed. I made the video. They didn’t write the script. They didn’t see the script. They didn’t have any creative or editorial influence in the work. They did really solid research and analysis for their book and I wanted to make a video that unpacked it. I think it’s reasonable if you disagree with my decision. But I feel comfortable having done this work. Overall, I’m impressed with your writing and presentation skills in this vid. Well researched and connecting useful dots to make your point. You have a new sub!
TLDR: 1. Johnny has different ideas about journalistic ethics. 2. This case was special because he was interested in the subject and approached the WEF about making the video.
Then Tom asks him to clarify some more stuff that was in the video:
- How did you come into possession of an advance copy of Stakeholder Capitalism?
- Why does an amended version of the script for the video appear on the WEF website as part of the Davos Agenda blogs?
- In addition to this, why does the blogpost version of the video feature both yourself and Peter Vanham as authors of the piece?
- Can you see how it might seem convenient that, as you describe it, you happened to approach the WEF out-of-the-blue asking if they wanted to sponsor a video at just the right time for it to launch alongside the Davos Agenda PR campaign, a campaign where they’ve specifically been looking to expand their reach on YouTube in ways they haven’t before (ie. The Davos Daily with Lilly Singh).
Johnny does not address these arguments. He says he wants the debate to be about the content of the video (Not the fact that the WEF paid to have it created).
I didnt read them all but thought that the fact he responded at all was nice - I also liked how other (non creators) were pointing out things such as what you said above.
I don’t know where I fall on the issue, but an example of a comment I enjoyed was the one below. Ive started to see more WEF pushback listed on other videos as well, so I might dive in to be better informed.
Comment:
Johnny is emblematic of the type of “journalism” that Vox promotes. Which is essentially “This BIG problem can actually be explained by these 3 points! pretty illustrations The solution to this problem is not structural change but simply us being cognizant of these issues so that we can be nicer towards each other :)”. Anyone reading this, check out Adam Ragusea’s “How I became the Mariah Carey Christmas chord guy (and why I hate it)” video. I like his take on how Vox boils things down to compete in the “attention economy” and how it makes it entertaining, but not accurate.
Yeah I guess he didn’t have to comment. Where else have you seen WEF pushback?
Russel Brand videos have shown in the recommended section between views, looks like he did at least a few on the subject. Also on other platforms like Odysee there have been a few as well.
Although there is a good pont in the effects of the algoritmic recomendations and how that influences us, It is dangerously implied in the article that is posible to determine “what is ok and what is not ok to be shared”, makes the bald implicit claim that “only if companies ban the bad content all will be better”.
Who gets to decide what needs to be censored and under what criteria? That question remains to be answered un a comprehensive way
