5 ms·

I saw the video as well. > First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. You are starting of by liter

by gtsop 6y ago

I saw the video as well. > First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. You are starting of by literally the last thing on the video which is the promotion of the uploader's income stream, a standard practice for full-time youtubers... to prove what? > The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the CIA." Which also is a form of propaganda. There is no such claim in the video. Very dishonest of you to missinform people about it. Apart from that, I agree with your overall conclusion. Youtube is not a public interest organization, they are a private company making money from ads, it is their right to do as they will on their platform. The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do.

jeanlucas 6y ago
>The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do. Indeed. About the criticism, it really sounds like that to me in the video. It implies in the way it is written, and I don't wanna go over details of the script, but pay attention to moments when he mentions "like a good democracy" and so on. The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. It is just one more player amongst many, and just a continuation of something that is going on since the Romans.
- gtsop 6y ago
  > The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. True > The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. Maybe true, but this is an unintended consequence. In no point does the uploader make such a claim or presents evidence to make you think of that. It's only by absence of mentions one can derrive to this false conclusion (that cia is the only such player) Final thought, although I get your criticism of the uploader, let's say "forgeting" other players as CIA, I would argue they are the biggest and most impactful contemporary agency. Thus, although not the only one, sure the one to be most concerned about. Thus his lack of mentioning other players isn't that of a con to me. My argument is based on what we publicly know of these agencies.
  - keymone 6y ago
    It’s not just absence of mentions of actions by other clandestine actors, it’s absence of even acknowledging what kind of world does cia operate in - everybody all the time is engaged in secret operations to advance their agenda. Everybody does that in multiple parallel projects, operated in different capacities with people of varying competency. Any “storytelling” about single agency or project or a person is incomplete almost to the point of being misleading/disinformational. The legacy of ashes is one such example. Does it mean one shouldn’t be (allowed) telling those stories? Certainly not. But without actively and profusely apologizing and warning that the story is definitely incomplete and almost certainly incorrect without proper context, which often is unknowable - the value to the consumer is negative. The producer knowingly or not is acting as a propaganda actor for one or many competing agencies.
    - gtsop 6y ago
      Asking out of curiosiry. Do you have an contemporary actors in mind that operate on the same level as CIA? Because it seems to me like there is much concern about other "conpetitors", but I do not know of any. Not to be missinterpreted, I don't say there aren't spy agencies from other countries trying to do similar things, I'm saying I am not aware of any that operate on a similar scale and range as CIA. Interested in learning about those
      - keymone 6y ago
        KGB did not go anywhere since USSR’s collapse. They literally operate a mafia superpower with nuclear capacity right now in form of Russia. They are also more sophisticated in terms of people operations since they’ve been at it for quite a bit longer and they were never restrained by even a facade of moral responsibility USA places upon itself by pretending to be democratic and leader of the free world. Whatever China’s counterpart to CIA is can’t be small either be it in scale or sophistication. Don’t underestimate those by comparing purely financial side of things, agencies that operate on ideology tend to have way more motivated and focused humans which more than makes up any financial shortcomings. The whole industry operates on the idea of asymmetric response and making the US waste so much resources is part of the goal.
therealdrag0 6y ago
> literally the last thing on the video The video starts, "This video brought to you by Nebula, the streaming platform for content providers like you and me."
- gtsop 6y ago
  Apologies, my mind completely erased that for some reason. Although this detail is false the validity of my point still stands. The creator's sponsor doesn't have anything to do with the action youtube has taken nor with the content of the video.There is nothing to be prooved by pointing that out.

by gtsop 6y ago

jeanlucas 6y ago

>The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do. Indeed. About the criticism, it really sounds like that to me in the video. It implies in the way it is written, and I don't wanna go over details of the script, but pay attention to moments when he mentions "like a good democracy" and so on. The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. It is just one more player amongst many, and just a continuation of something that is going on since the Romans.

gtsop 6y ago
> The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. True > The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. Maybe true, but this is an unintended consequence. In no point does the uploader make such a claim or presents evidence to make you think of that. It's only by absence of mentions one can derrive to this false conclusion (that cia is the only such player) Final thought, although I get your criticism of the uploader, let's say "forgeting" other players as CIA, I would argue they are the biggest and most impactful contemporary agency. Thus, although not the only one, sure the one to be most concerned about. Thus his lack of mentioning other players isn't that of a con to me. My argument is based on what we publicly know of these agencies.
- keymone 6y ago
  It’s not just absence of mentions of actions by other clandestine actors, it’s absence of even acknowledging what kind of world does cia operate in - everybody all the time is engaged in secret operations to advance their agenda. Everybody does that in multiple parallel projects, operated in different capacities with people of varying competency. Any “storytelling” about single agency or project or a person is incomplete almost to the point of being misleading/disinformational. The legacy of ashes is one such example. Does it mean one shouldn’t be (allowed) telling those stories? Certainly not. But without actively and profusely apologizing and warning that the story is definitely incomplete and almost certainly incorrect without proper context, which often is unknowable - the value to the consumer is negative. The producer knowingly or not is acting as a propaganda actor for one or many competing agencies.
  - gtsop 6y ago
    Asking out of curiosiry. Do you have an contemporary actors in mind that operate on the same level as CIA? Because it seems to me like there is much concern about other "conpetitors", but I do not know of any. Not to be missinterpreted, I don't say there aren't spy agencies from other countries trying to do similar things, I'm saying I am not aware of any that operate on a similar scale and range as CIA. Interested in learning about those
    - keymone 6y ago
      KGB did not go anywhere since USSR’s collapse. They literally operate a mafia superpower with nuclear capacity right now in form of Russia. They are also more sophisticated in terms of people operations since they’ve been at it for quite a bit longer and they were never restrained by even a facade of moral responsibility USA places upon itself by pretending to be democratic and leader of the free world. Whatever China’s counterpart to CIA is can’t be small either be it in scale or sophistication. Don’t underestimate those by comparing purely financial side of things, agencies that operate on ideology tend to have way more motivated and focused humans which more than makes up any financial shortcomings. The whole industry operates on the idea of asymmetric response and making the US waste so much resources is part of the goal.

therealdrag0 6y ago

> literally the last thing on the video The video starts, "This video brought to you by Nebula, the streaming platform for content providers like you and me."

gtsop 6y ago
Apologies, my mind completely erased that for some reason. Although this detail is false the validity of my point still stands. The creator's sponsor doesn't have anything to do with the action youtube has taken nor with the content of the video.There is nothing to be prooved by pointing that out.