Why do you trust the YouTube channel more than CNN? What has it done to earn your trust?
Would you trust it more than Fox News? Than Reuters or the AP? How come?
It makes little sense to be intensely skeptical of the quality of news from a large news corporation, even a biased one, and to then uncritically accept the quality of news from a smaller, more anonymous organization.
A Google search for the channel that you linked gives me absolutely nothing that signals to me they are trustworthy, and quite a bit that suggests they are not. How did you find them?
I don't think I said I trusted CNN. I asked the parent commenter why they trusted this other source more.
CNN being trustworthy or not doesn't make some random YouTube channel a better source. I'd like to understand how the parent commenter came to recommend this alternative.
I follow your logic, but are you sympathetic to the notion that an individual might judge an unknown entity with seemingly good content (my personal example: not infantilizing the viewer) may be more trustworthy than a demonstrably untrustworthy entity like CNN.
If your response was to the suggestion to trust this YouTuber it would make sense to me, but this is a rote comparison between a bad actor and an unknown actor. If I believe that CNN is a bad actor, I’ll trust relatively-unknown-but-compelling-content-YouTuber over CNN.
Surely the right answer then is to trust neither? Why would you trust anyone except a known-good actor?
Of course, this assumes a model where one completely trusts or doesn't trust. In reality, you can read CNN (or Fox, or MSNBC, or whatever) and learn a lot of things that are true - you just have to figure out how to wash the layers of spin off them to surface the bits that really matter.
For example, I might trust that the news (not opinion) sides of CNN or Fox won't knowingly run stories that are actually false/made up, but I wouldn't trust any speculation or conclusions they draw, or that the set of facts they have given me are the most important or salient ones. This Youtube channel, on the other hand, is a completely unknown factor - I can't know what to trust about them, if anything, and it would be a big investment to figure that out.
Put another way: If CNN, Fox, the NYT, the WSJ, and AP/Reuters are all reporting something, how likely is it to be true? If only one of those entities gives me certain information about that story, how likely is that info to be true? And so on.
I don't think I need to watch any videos from that channel in order to have the opinion "videos from anonymous YouTube channels are unlikely to be high quality news sources."
Even if I did watch their videos, what would that tell me? In what context should I judge them? Do they cite sources other than their anonymous presenter's own knowledge? Do I have sufficient knowledge to evaluate the sources they give me, if they give me any?
You haven't really answered my question: What has this entity done to earn your trust?
Since we're doing personal attacks now, I'm gonna disengage, but "a presentation of OSINT data" is meaningless if the data involved can't be independently vetted or cited.
This is my last comment responding to you; for the record, you have still answered none of my questions.
They literally have links to everything being presented.... that's what makes it Open Source. You're more than welcome to verify all the facts independently, as many already are. That level of transparency is not possible with CNN.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. It has annexed Crimea and occupied parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. Asking a question if Russia invaded Ukraine is either meaningless, or it implies that the occupied land is not Ukrainian.
I'd expect no webcam, no internet, if Ukraine were actually invaded, as all the noise seems to indicate is about to happen.
I wouldn't expect to see Dnipro lit like a Christmas tree every night, or families with their kids out at the slopes during the day, or people just going about their lives.
Because that's what happened the last time the US declared war. (December 8, 1941)
I've been told that we're on the brink of real, actual war. I've been lead to believe that almost all of Russia's army is ready to storm the entire country of Ukraine.
For me, as an old fart... WWIII includes seeing a flash outside my window, and ceasing to be about 10 seconds later as it becomes 5000+ degrees. People further away from the heart of the nation's industrial capacity would eventually see thousands of mushroom clouds.
I expect the deaths of hundreds of millions, if not Billions, if WWIII kicks off.
---
That's what I've been told to expect, but that's not what I actually expect. I expect this to be a lot of noise, a much smaller number of deaths. Still unnecessary, and tragic deaths, and deprivations.
I expect life in the US and everywhere not immediately in the area to continue as normal. I expect a wave of refugees. I expect backlash to build, as it is certainly building for the USA as we deliberately starve those in Afghanistan at the moment. (Really, the last time we did it, we got Bin Laden as part of the backlash, can't we learn?)
I know that nobody but an idiot, or someone with a profit to gain from it, wants war.
sorry about the rant, but that's my honest answer to your question
PS: If the other stupid possible outcome of this happens, and "cyber weapons" start to be used, the world could end up with large chunks of our infrastructure disabled for widely ranging periods of time. The knock-on effects of that could be anywhere from as bad as the effects of Covid19 to civilization ending.
Well, first of all, that's not how it works.
When Crimea was occupied, people were going on with their lives.
When separatists stormed into government buildings, in other parts of Ukraine people were going on with their lives — except for those who volunteered in the army.
No internet would happen only if Russia will bombard the infrastructure.
What if they just invade eastern regions, why don't it qualify as invasion? They literally stated that they do not recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine on their government channel by their highest official.
People are going on about their lives — because they have nowhere to go, there is nothing they can do, why is this so hard to comprehend?
Kyiv looks half-deserted, there is easily two times less cars on the road, and there is much less people on the streets, everyone buying matches and candles.
People are scared.
In two days, 4 army Ukrainian army members have been killed by shelling.
It's kind of sad how real this comment turned out to be. That the webcam you linked to now (3 days later) only shows a frozen image [1] of the "peaceful" afternoon approximately 13 hours after the posting of your comment.
27 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 68.4 ms ] threadMaybe? https://liveuamap.com/ any others?
What is the best website for doomscrolling?
I have found this YouTube channel be extremely informative instead: https://www.youtube.com/c/S2Underground/videos
Would you trust it more than Fox News? Than Reuters or the AP? How come?
It makes little sense to be intensely skeptical of the quality of news from a large news corporation, even a biased one, and to then uncritically accept the quality of news from a smaller, more anonymous organization.
A Google search for the channel that you linked gives me absolutely nothing that signals to me they are trustworthy, and quite a bit that suggests they are not. How did you find them?
This should be good.
CNN being trustworthy or not doesn't make some random YouTube channel a better source. I'd like to understand how the parent commenter came to recommend this alternative.
If your response was to the suggestion to trust this YouTuber it would make sense to me, but this is a rote comparison between a bad actor and an unknown actor. If I believe that CNN is a bad actor, I’ll trust relatively-unknown-but-compelling-content-YouTuber over CNN.
Of course, this assumes a model where one completely trusts or doesn't trust. In reality, you can read CNN (or Fox, or MSNBC, or whatever) and learn a lot of things that are true - you just have to figure out how to wash the layers of spin off them to surface the bits that really matter.
For example, I might trust that the news (not opinion) sides of CNN or Fox won't knowingly run stories that are actually false/made up, but I wouldn't trust any speculation or conclusions they draw, or that the set of facts they have given me are the most important or salient ones. This Youtube channel, on the other hand, is a completely unknown factor - I can't know what to trust about them, if anything, and it would be a big investment to figure that out.
Put another way: If CNN, Fox, the NYT, the WSJ, and AP/Reuters are all reporting something, how likely is it to be true? If only one of those entities gives me certain information about that story, how likely is that info to be true? And so on.
Question: Did you even watch any of the videos before deciding your opinion?
Even if I did watch their videos, what would that tell me? In what context should I judge them? Do they cite sources other than their anonymous presenter's own knowledge? Do I have sufficient knowledge to evaluate the sources they give me, if they give me any?
You haven't really answered my question: What has this entity done to earn your trust?
I would suggest having an informed opinion over a loud one.
This is my last comment responding to you; for the record, you have still answered none of my questions.
It's just the continuation and escalation of their 2014 invasion.
https://balticlivecam.com/cameras/ukraine/kiev/sophia-square...
I'm tired of the Military/Industrial/Corporate Media Complex tail trying to wag the dog.
I'm not across the situation entirely, but I'm not sure what that camera is supposed to show
I wouldn't expect to see Dnipro lit like a Christmas tree every night, or families with their kids out at the slopes during the day, or people just going about their lives.
Because that's what happened the last time the US declared war. (December 8, 1941)
I've been told that we're on the brink of real, actual war. I've been lead to believe that almost all of Russia's army is ready to storm the entire country of Ukraine.
For me, as an old fart... WWIII includes seeing a flash outside my window, and ceasing to be about 10 seconds later as it becomes 5000+ degrees. People further away from the heart of the nation's industrial capacity would eventually see thousands of mushroom clouds.
I expect the deaths of hundreds of millions, if not Billions, if WWIII kicks off.
---
That's what I've been told to expect, but that's not what I actually expect. I expect this to be a lot of noise, a much smaller number of deaths. Still unnecessary, and tragic deaths, and deprivations.
I expect life in the US and everywhere not immediately in the area to continue as normal. I expect a wave of refugees. I expect backlash to build, as it is certainly building for the USA as we deliberately starve those in Afghanistan at the moment. (Really, the last time we did it, we got Bin Laden as part of the backlash, can't we learn?)
I know that nobody but an idiot, or someone with a profit to gain from it, wants war.
sorry about the rant, but that's my honest answer to your question
PS: If the other stupid possible outcome of this happens, and "cyber weapons" start to be used, the world could end up with large chunks of our infrastructure disabled for widely ranging periods of time. The knock-on effects of that could be anywhere from as bad as the effects of Covid19 to civilization ending.
No internet would happen only if Russia will bombard the infrastructure. What if they just invade eastern regions, why don't it qualify as invasion? They literally stated that they do not recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine on their government channel by their highest official.
People are going on about their lives — because they have nowhere to go, there is nothing they can do, why is this so hard to comprehend? Kyiv looks half-deserted, there is easily two times less cars on the road, and there is much less people on the streets, everyone buying matches and candles. People are scared.
In two days, 4 army Ukrainian army members have been killed by shelling.
[1]: https://archive.fo/Db5Ax