In November 2016, Kurtzek published a video in the mode: is this clickbait is this great beta? What is it I Used to like these guys I Like the videos where really says Everyone's Watching but Chad says it Tell us a story of devastating diseases that the world governments couldn't solve. So the Big Pharma stepped in to be the hero of humanity. It's one of those two good to be true stories. So I decided to look it up Myself Are nowhere near as glaring for the Big Pharma is Curses Act presents pharmaceutical corporations.

They donate their medicines. They didn't do it, they did it after Decades of neglecting the diseases because they weren't profitable enough to manufacture fixes for them. Bill Gates is actually responsible for much of the neglect. His charitable priorities over emphasized big name diseases such as Malaria HIV or Tuberculosis, but in the process of doing so, they drew crucial attention and resources away from more common and structural problems, meaning of which led to outbreaks of other diseases.

After the public pressure was too large to ignore, the drug makers decided to join the plan. Big Pharma never came up with this initiative. It was the World Health Organization who had proposed a road map to eradicate the diseases by 2020 and convinced governments and ngos to join them. The pharmaceutical conglomerates never assumed any risk.

These corporations took home almost nine trillion dollars in profits in 18 years, so this little stunt is really just a pocket change for them. This video was paid for by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and it so happens that the gates are heavily invested in many of the Pharma companies curses are portrays as viewers they own major Holdings in many of the participating companies and both Bill and Melinda Gates are Trustees of two Pharma firms. This video isn't positive news, it's a positive VR Curtis Act Admitted they wouldn't have made this video If it wasn't paid for by Gates Okay, what the hell just happened? Wait chat. That's so weird that wait people that are this high up and that rich will are taking making sponsorships whatever with a YouTube channel that makes it just at random like that is pretty out of left field.

This one video is the perfect culmination of everything that's wrong with billionaires funding media to get the coverage they need, it provides a whitewash take on real events. It undesiredly elevates the role of private entities and gives a marketing boost their agenda and financial interest. The ultra wealthy are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into media companies, academic institutions, and governing bodies to rig every step of policy making in their favor. When billionaires want to open up the markets for their trade, they'll fund media Outlets that tell the audience how important Investments Innovations and economic growth are.

They'll donate to research that will give them the argument that whatever they decide to do is science. They'll give the political campaigns to get the right candidates elected so that it allows. The law before are easier to pass. We have identified this to be a problem with all big institutions and this is what it did to our trust in them.

foreign. So if it is a problem when billionaires fund our politicians, our journalists, and our Academia is it also a problem when they fund our YouTubers Because billionaire funding is a lot more prevalent on YouTube than you might think. it's far beyond the scope of this one six year old video. I Didn't realize I was watching a video sponsored by The Bill and Melinda gave Foundation because critic didn't reveal this information until the last 20 seconds of the video.

I Actually first found out about the sponsorship from Curses Act medium article on how they treat sponsors here: Philip did banners and I'm a media now. why doesn't Jeff Bezos pay for our servers man I mean we're not poor, but bro boom, shit's dry man, we're the owner of the channel admitted that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was their biggest supporter. So big in fact, the company is poor. Yeah, it helped transform Kurtzag into a Powerhouse but Philip Detmer also told us that Curses Act is almost entirely viewer of funded I wanted to know where the truth lies.

So I went to the Foundations Grant database and found this in November 2015. Curtis Act was awarded 570 thousand dollars when the bill and middle of the Gates Foundation for a 49 month long contract I wanted to see the full extent of this contract. so I started going through their YouTube videos to see how many were made for the foundation. and that's when I entered a rabbit hole I was able to identify at least eight videos curses I've made for the Gates Foundation when they were awarded the gates Grant The patreon was a relatively small, yielding less than nine thousand dollars per month.

The money from Gates would cover at least eleven thousand dollars per month or 71 250 per video. So the Gates money alone would be at least on par with their patreon. but Gates wasn't alone. Throughout my research, I kept discovering more and more billionaire sponsored videos.

It's not just one Foundation it's George Soros The Templetons and Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskowitz They also made a sponsored video for this professor from Oxford University but couldn't speak it because um, they want to educate people about some of these topics whatever and give people like good information or whatever. or do they get skewed? University William Mccaskill, who is funded by Open Philanthropy and Crisis, had also received money from Bill Gates personal blog and venture capitalist funds. from what I was able to find curses out made at least one video for Open Society Foundations at least three videos for Templeton World charity, three videos for Bill Gates Block and Breakthrough Energy, and one video for William Mechanical. We know they were awarded half a million from The Gates Foundation and almost 6 million from Open Philanthropy.

If they kept the same per video rate since the gates Grand it could be estimated Curtis Act received at least 7 million from billionaire funds. This would be more money than Cruces apps see from their supporters on Patreon in the entire history of the channel. this made me realize that Chris's Act never was this small, independent, almost entirely viewer-funded Channel As soon as the studio Incorporated Billionaires the game lining up, they trained over the small wrong when you wear these Man When I got the letter like that, stop uploading into the React videos I knew this was not like your your your uncle and Aunt run your YouTube channel. Unique based design Studio with five employees into a multi-million dollar media Powerhouse with dozens of employees.

Kurtz's Act was also sponsored by regular commercial businesses such as Brilliant or Skillshare, but neither of these has a multi-billion dollar investments in global Industries And they aren't spending millions in political lobbies trying to influence law making. And most importantly, they don't fund the sources that critic uses for the research and what the hell is going on with Curtis Ad research. Kurtzak told us their research is impartial and thanks like buying scientists to ensure Integrity but my Escape hold up I just got a A lot of companies don't like watch parties and they want you to watch their their Esports events because they're their sponsors and so I just don't like it that people that they don't approve of watch their content and react to it. What if they asked me to stop reacting to their content, not because they didn't like it for their growth? What if the sponsors told them that that my react yo yo.

They were okay with me wrecking their for months before or even years and all of a sudden they said yo, stop reacting. stop reacting to the Uh to our videos. Isn't it possible it's connected? This isn't Alarms were already buzzing out of their asses. So I started looking at their sources and noticed something odd.

Many of their videos rely primarily on a single publication. This publication is a partner of the channel and they help them with research and provide numbers for their scripts. This publication appears so frequently in their sources. My react was so bad that is.

their website is quoted up to dozens of times in a single document. This research publication is not some independent group of scientists just sharing their hard science for free. It is our role in data Heavily funded by Bill Gates and other billionaires, many of which have also sponsored Kirk's Act videos, The publication received at least 4.8 million dollars with the gays Foundation alone, but they were also funded by Open Philanthropy Templeton and William Haskell. All of these entities had their series of sponsored videos at their Kurtzes Act Channel Their partnership with Our Role in Data was initiated by the Grant from The Gates Foundation through the first video on Overpopulation made in collaboration with Max Roser the founder and Lead scientist of Our World in Data.

Following this money Trail led me to discover that the data in criticism videos isn't such a rock-solid science as they authoritatively present in their videos. Many of the numbers from our role in data criticism relies on so much are complete garbage in the videos in over population. They show this amazing decline in global poverty, a trend which they attribute to economic growth. But where is this data coming from? It's from Max Rosergraph at Our Role in data.

But look at how the data points go all the way back to the early 19th century. None of these historical numbers are proven. Real Data on poverty for the majority of the world didn't exist until 1981.. anything about wait, the curve isn't even that important for the early days.

Look, the curb still matters pretty much only from like 1950s. Michael Anderson Network matters. But it matters even more at this at this particular rate, because that's what it it, bro bro bro. I Watched the video Three, None of these historical numbers are proven.

Real data on poverty for the majority of the world didn't exist until 1981. anything before that. It's not a super like. and who defines extreme poverty? The World Bank does how by calculating the lowest possible rate as an average from poverty lines of the poorest countries in the world that's living below 1.90 a day.

Scholars Strongly disagree with this raid and suggest at least seven dollars and 40 cents a day with the world. Banks rate billions of people that are extremely poor according to their National Poverty lines in the in lower middle income regions which is what makes the graph looks like this instead of this if we use the 7.40 line or this if we leave out China So not a dramatic decline at all, but an increase actually. or a stagnation at best. which is 1981.

there's those so so what stat do you choose then actually, or a stagnation at best since 1981.. there's also half of the world's population suffering from hunger, food, insecurity, and malnutrition, more than 40 million modern slaves, and the ever widening income gap between the richest and the poor. So really hard to come to an optimistic conclusion that poverty is somehow on the decline. But it is a conclusion touted by Bill Gates who also paid for this video to be made as The Economist Max Roser has said the world has done quite well on this.

The newspapers could have run a headline. The lives of the poor will improve more in the next 15 years than at any other time in history. Number of people in poverty fell by 137 000 since yesterday comes out as a what for many people will be a stunningly positive story. Many videos made in partnership with our rolling data can be dissected like this: Look at the numbers on historical emissions from the video on who is responsible for what Am I Crazy thinking that inflation is up, Prices are up, rent is up, um, mortgages are up, everything is going crazy mode and Um Baseline on the salaries and minimums are not moving at all.

They're moving by like tiniest margins. Everything going up is is outpacing the rate of increased salaries and and solutions. Properties in the in in a worse state every day. Climate Change: Where are these numbers coming from are rolling data of course, But that's just one source that conveniently downplays the role of the developed countries in climate change.

According to the paper, from Lancet funded by no one, the US is possible. not for 25 of emissions, but 40. The EU is responsible for 29 instead of 22. G8 emitted 85 of historical CO2 and the global North is accountable for 92 percent of excess carbon in the atmosphere.

These numbers draw a much less Equitable share of responsibility than curses that as I was analyzing more and more videos I actually discovered a plot I did not expect to find in a couple of separate videos on climate Change. Criticism: briefly mentioned: seemingly random selection of Innovations or a new generation of nuclear power plants to new batteries, electronics and steel, low carbon production of cement, artificial meat, carbon capture, carbon cap, direct air catch, and carbon capture. There doesn't seem to be any objective Merit as to why I mentioned these in particular, but they do have in common two things: Bill Gates has invested Millions into startups developing low carbon cement, steel batteries alternative mean: nuclear energy and carbon capture, and none of these technologies have proven to be commercially viable or scalable enough to make them count. The Innovations lack robust scientific backing and experts do not agree relying on them is a valid strategy.

Many videos and topics oh no. Pluto dimensable. Oh no, Oh oh, let's try this word. in the conference room, we got legs I was so happy.

it's just me and the boys. hey, it's no big deal. Just invited with the boys I I'm watching a video when I'm kind of busy. I'll talk to them later.

is that aligned with the interests of Curtis Act. Billionaire sponsors are frequently sprinkled with messaging about how Investments and Innovations will solve a problem or make the world a better place by investing in these things. Right now, investment and Aid and fair investment is investment in massive investment as investment pours in. it's obnoxious how often this happens we invest in Innovation that lead to Innovation the nature of innovation and Innovation but Innovation the more time we give Innovation and Innovations like artificial meat, the standards for equality of such data is for fun to house.

Any of this a problem. I Don't I'm I'm not even trying to be a chef of billionaires, but how Is Engine is a problem that they're trying to make new things, trying to innovate them and they're trying to find solutions for the future. Whether it's proven or not that they're trying something, what else is there then trying it only lowered in order to make these hidden injections work. In the instance of carbon capture, Curtisac told the numbers on car straight from a Gates funded magazine who took the number from a Gates funded private carbon capture facility.

but that's the lowest estimate. In reality, it could be as much as twice as expensive today, and still at least twice as expensive as trees are right now than a carbon capture is projection. Oh, that would be in the most optimistic estimates, which won't be real until at least the next decade. Rather than solving the climate crisis, many scientists argue such: Investments divert attention away from more impactful solutions And Delay phasing out of modern industrial methods and fossil fuel dependence.

Critic doesn't tell you which Technologies Bill Gates has invested in and how positive messaging about them is advancing his positions. But Curses Act did take the effort to mention exactly those technologies that Bill Gates and his billionaire friends are most invested in. There is a pattern that can explain why criticism videos are like this. In many videos, they coincide with Bill Gates Interest: They collaborate with our role in data or prioritize their content on these issues.

In their video on do We Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change Kurt Does that make the idea presented incorrect though? Yeah, this is a question. Does that make the information presented in the videos incorrect in in a way that that's dangerous or not? Yeah. I don't think I I Don't really think so either. It's Kazak.

prominently links to our worlding data's PCS on nuclear energy. This video is not sponsored by Gates but the billionaire is betting heavily on his new generation of nuclear reactors. Chris's acts Source document links to our welding data 27 times or about every third. Reference: Kurtz's Act made videos heavily criticizing organic food.

This is another topic of major investment from Gates Who thinks industrialized agriculture with pesticides and GMOs is the best approach to solving world hunger, which it hasn't solved so far. In all four cases where Chris Isang draws verdict on organic food, our rolling data is cited as reference. This video is also not sponsored by Gates The most Generous Billionaire is one of the earliest backers of alternative Needs, owning major positions in vegan and meat-free protein companies. Criticide has made a series of videos on meat, all with a strong verdict on how meat is bad for you and the environment.

All of these videos were advised on by Hannah Rachel one of the keys some Concepts show Sometimes some billions or some companies that act in ways that they pretty much shouldn't right now that it's disallowed. but that makes a little bit of a major bias which is overall bad. But I think the video makes it worse. So I kind of wish that the video showed the bad and let let the viewer understand what the bad is and make a conclusion.

but it is feeding the conclusion in a way. It makes it worse. That's what. I That's what I'm getting tenants at Our World in data during the production I Guess there's one video Richie was a business manager at a mean free microprotein company.

Whatever your professional admit is, these are conflicts of interest that should normally be disclosed by any serious research. but Chris's act makes no effort to help you connect the dots. Curse's Act is terrible at disclosing their sponsors I Did a poll of my audience to see when they think channels should disclaims sponsorship. Most people would prefer before the video starts or during English reveals their spawn.

Oh okay dude. okay dude, these are the ones who who make it. These are these are the ones who regulate and enforce the the correct way of putting the sponsors. Uh, if somebody has a problem with how the sponsors are all right, I'm not being a sheep I'm just telling you I'm telling you if there's a problem when the house sponsors is disclosed, then they should report it and it's gonna be enforced by the by the government intro Curses act Never reveals their sponsors until the very end of their videos.

Some sponsors were declared in the last few seconds of the video, some were only mentioning the text on screen, and in at least one instance the only disclaimer of sponsorship was in the description. this is a low bar even for YouTube creators. Oh, that's bad. Okay, that's pretty bad.

Disclose their sponsors up front. why should criticism be given a pen No Most people who do not, that actually might be a violation. Okay I don't want it as it could possibly I don't know I don't know the definitions I think it might be. but I mean watch videos till the very last second Or who cannot agree on everything that's on the screen would never be aware of the extent to which criticism videos are sponsored by billionaires.

Chris's act also does a terrible job at explaining who their sponsors actually are. This video is part of a series about climate change supported by Breakthrough Energy. In their Climate Change video sponsored by Breakthrough Energy, you're told it is just a coalition founded by Bill Gates that's working to expand clean energy investment and support the innovations that will lead the world to. Net Zero Carbon emissions.

But they don't tell you that Breakthrough Energy is a bunch of venture capitalist funds where billionaires tend to make huge profits from adoption. with. Technologies they invest their billions into Kurtzkes Act Left a link in the description that leads to Gates book sale but not the fund's official website. YouTube has a policy that Flags channels funded by governments with a label that informs viewers of this financial conflict.

This was an act connected with the aim of combating government misinformation on the platform. You can see this on Christmas Act German channel that is backed by the government and YouTube labels it as a German PBS This same standard should be applied to private funding too. There should be a label that cannot be arbitrarily set or removed by the Creator That this closes up around who is finding their videos? Media Consolidation is a major threat to diversity of views and billionaires including the ones funding curses act are the main driver. That is correct.

It is not enough to promise editorial. Independence Because there are multiple ways sponsors can influence content behind the scenes. Kurtz Gazag maintains their sponsors never have input on their scripts, but in practice they routinely consult with researchers that come from sponsor-funded institutions or scientists directly on their sponsor's payroll. The two video scores is that made with Max Roser were sponsor that is the third level of Interest Okay, this guy make a video about renewable energy uh with with vehicles okay and I'm Tesla okay, same as the video of course I have all the research and like that about our cars better.

Is somebody doing it better Is a better product? Is there better ways of doing it right? Well, the guy doing it is doing for me right? Well of course I'm gonna you know yo brother. But like I said, it's still a conflict of interest right? because of I mean there's a direct flow here. there's a direct flow that comes from the person that is investing in their information, their product, their results. It's like a it's a direct flow.

So of course um you know I mean it's trash because then it's like I could have presented like a new renewable energy stuff right about about their competitor. What do you think Bill Gates is going to do If they're messing in this you think they're gonna go like it? Oh yeah, promoter, competitor and focus in the ass. We pay for this by the way. but is an they're never gonna do that.

That will never happen. I mean and that's a problem that wouldn't happen because if you want to do good doesn't matter who's profit infinite. If their goal is to do good, you're sponsoring for good. Whether it's your neighbor doing it, what is the pope doing it? Who gives the the point was to get there and you're getting there faster.

So by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that Max rosers are rolled in data received almost 5 million dollars from Bill Gates. So what is exactly the degree of separation here in the video on vaccine side effects. Critic lists six experts they consulted with, at least four of which are from Gates funded institutions and one scientist is an executive. At The Gates Foundation How is that not a sponsor commenting on their script in three videos curtism made for the Templeton World charity.

at least four out of six scientists have received direct funding for the research from Temple. At this point, if information is is factually incorrect and there's a prominent information, this is a problem. Otherwise, this is not a problem. I Don't believe this would be a problem unless the information is not the actual or skewed or makes the company look good or it promotes their product.

Why? Because somebody in somebody's science is is black on white like a textbook. There's a lot of who says it. If you have the experts on hand, they don't have to offset the car, they don't have to, they don't have to ask professor of ours or whatever the you have to ask if the if the information is objective and it can get it from these guys directly. How is that a problem? I Don't say that's a problem at all time.

In the curses ad video on long-termism the last human sponsored by Open Philanthropy, two out of three scientists are from the Oxford Future of Humanity. If I ask what are like the four modes gonna make a vaccine, What are the four methods that they make a vaccine right? Or or the foreign nature of vaccine or whatever right? Whether it's a guy from Harvard from Bill Foundation a guide from down the street or something like that, it'll be the same information. Nobody's gonna like him. Well actually.

bro at my lab, bro, we we do that on the Fly shut up and we call it dance. Boom. It'll all be the same thing. This is true.

There are there are finite methods of having a vaccine, right? There's not a billion. There's like it's like four or something like that. Or three. Some like that, right? right? Whether you get immersion from Bill Gates Jeff Bezos Elon Musk or Barack Obama, it's giving the same Institute The Institute which received at least 15 million pounds from Open Philanthropy.

The one the LMU Munich scientist was also at Oxford during the Open Philanthropy grants, There is no disclaimer of any of these associations anywhere in Kurtzkazag materials. Another long term is video. The one on the Civilizational collapse was sponsored and researched by William Mccaskill. Seemingly a random Professor from Oxford University Mccaskill is behind the center of Effective Altruism and a number of other Charities that have received funding from Open Philanthropy and some have funded our role in data.

Nothing about this relationship is ever disclosed in Curses at Source Materials. Open Philanthropy has given Kurtz's ad more than 5 million Euros to expand the channel into foreign languages and to promote long-term its philosophy and effective altruism in their videos. Do you think money doesn't buy influence? So billionaires do political lobbying and campaign financing for the lows. And they don't get any laws influenced in their favor.

Do billionaires buy newspapers and donate to Media companies to support independent journalism? Think of what happened to the Covid-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford researchers originally planned to release their vaccine pattern for free so that third world countries could manufacture their doses faster instead of waiting for the rich countries to donate the vaccines to them until Bill Gates stepped in and forced the university to partner with a manufacturer and not release their patents against the pleas of The Who And the developing world that patents which Typhoon Vaccine Access Gates used is 750 million dollar leverage to change a University's course. and he did this to protect the interests of big pharmaceutical companies he has been investing in for deck that that is, that is. If this is really that's a sort of hard topic, there should be systems in the world that that go against this part of capitalism. There should be.

When there's a global thing that's going on, there should be almost AAA a.m forced thing. They have them by what they put. they get a fund, they're gonna pull the money. They put a bunch of like top end Pros over the top experts and they were going something and whatever they get out of that the world benefits from it.

I know I'm bringing a Utopia handy. Okay otherwise otherwise because of the system we currently work with them bro, the company spends it billions. A crazy amount of research like that they're the first to pop off. It's like yo bro I mean give it to us for free and then um um, make you want a better place POG Championship Brother I Know this is how I'm thinking and everything We're right, this is how it should be.

but in you go into a room of uh bro you go to the investor board and say yo guys we've been we spent a a crazy amount of profit and fight all our solar juice on on This research. hey yo, it's time to um, give it away. bruh what do you think they're gonna say I mean I'm just saying it. That's just it's just capitalism.

It's it's it. It's what it should be. systems that work against that part of devils and it's how it is. I mean brother, Do you really think that being vegetables are gonna go? Yep.

Give It Away Give the research for free, No shots which resulted in any company, apartheid and possibly millions of preventable deaths. Money buys influence, It buys It in politics. It buys it inside. It's how it should be.

But favorable coverage in the media Gates Poured 300 million dollars into media companies. Kurtzak being one of them, ask yourself, when was the last time you read a critical piece on Gates or his foundation? If Kurtzusak wants to maintain that, why are you guys think that I'm on their side I Don't get it I mean last pause of the day. Okay bro. I'm just telling you you will never roll I Can't even come Bro.

You can't even convince. Even though live condoms been has been thriving like crazy to pop an alpha, you can't You can't even convince Trillionaire Andy to invest into a live servers for this for the operation to to survive. and you're gonna say yo, dude, these these all these investors. Let's convince them that all the way that they spent on Research Give it away for free bro.

these old they don't give a some people dying it. If it means that they can make them under the dollar, you will never convince them. Who are you talking to? There's like them. When you think about capitalism that is the maximum.

That is the worldwide maximum capitalism you're talking about Big Pharma Billionaire Trillionaire markets. These guys. They're They're Their blood is a capital. There's actual gold in their bloodstream.

And you're gonna. you're gonna tell me that you want these guys to give away their their hard-earned research for free and to help the world. Oh bro. were holding vaccines that people weren't even taking it.

They were. they were. They were hijacking the priority list of the vaccines out of everybody that needed them for people that weren't even taking them. Holy.

The edible point that they were even trying to pay people to go to the local CVS and take the shots. And if vaccines were going bad, Bro unless unless I misinformed I Hope I'm not as important I Hope I'm not done about this. I'm pretty sure they hijacked all the top parity lists and in other countries in Africa they're getting none of this right. and all the vaccines were going bad.

People aren't taking them, they were trying to. They were trying to hand them out for free. People wouldn't go to the local. the Local CVS Dude, when the war was asking foreign so it all plays in, it all plays in.

They are able to decouple the interests of their funding stores from the content in their videos. Does this mean that we'll soon get to see a cutely animated character of Bill Gates meeting up with Jeffrey Epstein and his private venues after he was convicted sex trafficker. Science is more than a body of knowledge when Big Money buys big influence. But guess what? That was wild was it? Asian If kutzyzak wants to maintain they are able to decouple the interests of their funding stores from the content in their videos.

Does this mean that we'll soon get to see a cutely animated character of Bill Gates meeting up with Jeffrey Epstein at his private venues after he was convicted. Sex Trafficker Science is I Don't get it more than a body of knowledge when Big Money buys big influence. Science is always the casualty. if we are not going to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true.

To be skeptical of those in Authority it becomes the less diverse, more stringent, and more authoritative. Then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along in the academic. Community There is a phenomenon called the chilling effect. It occurs when scientists self-censor or refuse to speak out against the funding source of their institutions out of fear of losing support or getting sacked with the Gates Foundation they refer to it as the Bill chill.

Gates Funding priorities have worried scientists for stifling Anonymous Like range. Okay, a quoting a movie I Rewatched today, right? And there's a coordinate again. Well at one point the guy was like really rich. He's got like billions of dollars, whatever, right? Why does he care about like 10 mil or eight mil or whatever He was stolen, right? And the guy says that people, people who were like made it massive Fortune right? What? What? They really don't want to get cheated out of any of it.

and I think that's like very true here, right? That's just that. that's just that's just how it is building diversity. For decades, his philanthropic funding made it difficult to find it I think it makes a lot of his multi-billion Dollar Empire of donations and Investments Gates amassed enough power to single-handedly influence policies of global and National governing bodies. When Gates Foundation pours money into the project, they end up having enough power to veto public policies that don't align with their Charities priorities.

We need to have a serious debate is Big Money Lobbying A problem only if it's for issues we don't like or is it a problem on principle. This is how Kirsten views the fossil fuel lobbyists as evil villains trying to influence our politicians and means lead the public with their money. Princess Act clearly understands the problem of big money, but David was good though don't seem to have a problem with when they are in the receiving end of the big money, influencing policies and public opinion. Billionaires have hacked the system by which we measure the myriads of arguments in science and public disc.

Wars With the sheer wealth, they brute force their ideas into the mainstream by giving their interests more funding for research, more coverage in the media, and higher likelihood of becoming a public policy. This system is beyond broken. As big as Kurtz's act back in 2017. Curses act admitted in their medium article abroad would actually be able to do away with sponsors.

Ultimate champ. That's crazy. That was like you know, like the laws and people were Lobby like for music and like damn station like that right? The system the system is right and you go down the list of the the, the, the contribution that people made um and the companies that are like donating you. Look at the amounts.

You would think that like these guys are making billions of dollars, they're probably like buying them out for like Millions a hundred thousands Bro it's like 30k. 20K It's like it's like holy for some of these losses. like that, they're changing the world at 20K Papa Holy. Together that's insane.

It's that cheap. it's that cheaper to the Old Branch that makes commission work for big name clients. So why haven't the channel got rid of sponsors yet? They are already funded by the German State and they sold courses on Brilliant. Why not maintain Integrity You can afford to make less, make less by the very least.

Criticism should be more transparent in disclosed sponsorship at the beginning of their videos so the people can make the decision before they watch the video. Yeah, maybe we should do Lobby strings. Okay, but transparency alone would not fix the conflict of interest and perverse incentives. Journalists Educators and media Outlets should not take money from entities they are supposed to be critically covering.

Tobacco Advertising has been band almost universally across the globe. It isn't the only Lobby that's been found influencing Academia Education and media with their funding. Billionaires seek to do the same. There is no such thing as a free gift.

Did you notice that throughout this entire video? I Mean there was no segue Coke Wants people to drink their product. The product makes people obese. Do not do not. Advocates That's a collateral now.

I Have to share. You'll be able to drink the cancer segment. That's because this channel has never taken a single sponsorship deal. none with my current ad.

Revenue I Can honestly Proclaim that the hated One channel is indeed almost entirely viewer funded. Without my Patreon supporters, this video wouldn't happen. So if you'd like to support actual independent content, please join my Patreon today. You'll be greatly rewarded with an exclusive podcast and merge.

Chan Thank you I Know she's really interested um in seeing what are the Um chat? What is it the FTC I guess I'm not American I don't know these systems and I know what they are on Quebec What the What are the Um, the regulations and and the rules behind Um sponsorships when it comes down to social media on YouTube It's pretty strict.