WaterBear – A free library of documentaries and shorts(waterbear.com)
waterbear.com
WaterBear – A free library of documentaries and shorts
https://www.waterbear.com/
72 comments
Get a wireguard vpn from mulvad.
Interesting thought: isn't using a vpn a form of pirating? Can you even "pirate" something that is offered free (just not to you)?
> isn't using a vpn a form of pirating?
sorry, what?
sorry, what?
Sorry, of course I did not mean in general but only in this specific context where the purpose is to spoof your location in order to circumvent location-based restrictions.
No a vpn gives you an ip number in the country where the vpn provider has servers.
Makes it appear as if you are accessing the internet from that country.
I don't have moral issues with it whatsoever.
Makes it appear as if you are accessing the internet from that country.
I don't have moral issues with it whatsoever.
Morally of course I agree, I think the parent was wondering if this technically violates copyright law, though. It seems like it might if WaterBear doesn't have the right to distribute their content in your country for whatever reason.
Right.
Content creator: Can you distribute my content? Only in $list-of-countries though.
Distributor: Sure.
If the distributor permits VPNs, how are they sure they are authorized to distribute?
Content creator: Can you distribute my content? Only in $list-of-countries though.
Distributor: Sure.
If the distributor permits VPNs, how are they sure they are authorized to distribute?
More likely:
Content creator: Can you distribute my content everywhere?
Distributor: Sure. But because of $reasons, it will only be $list-of-countries
Content creator: Can you distribute my content everywhere?
Distributor: Sure. But because of $reasons, it will only be $list-of-countries
Legal and moral definition of piracy vary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_piracy
Unfortunately, if you don't have permission to download then you may be committing piracy. In this case, entire countries apparently don't have permission.
If the system is guessing location based on IP address, then granting permission based on that guess, then I expect their permission grant should be valid. How would a user know that they have bugs in their permission system?
If you connect directly first, are told "no", then bypass the system with a VPN: You probably understand that you aren't supposed to have access.
What will happen if you commit this type of piracy? I don't think there's a loss of revenue, or damages so pursuing pirates likely isn't worth it.
Obligatory, I am not a lawyer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_piracy
Unfortunately, if you don't have permission to download then you may be committing piracy. In this case, entire countries apparently don't have permission.
If the system is guessing location based on IP address, then granting permission based on that guess, then I expect their permission grant should be valid. How would a user know that they have bugs in their permission system?
If you connect directly first, are told "no", then bypass the system with a VPN: You probably understand that you aren't supposed to have access.
What will happen if you commit this type of piracy? I don't think there's a loss of revenue, or damages so pursuing pirates likely isn't worth it.
Obligatory, I am not a lawyer.
Pretty much. Intent matters.
If you connect over a VPN with the purpose of circumventing geoblocking, it could be judged equivalent to copyright infringement in many jurisdictions.
If you just default to connect over VPN and weren’t aware that by doing so you now have access to content you otherwise would not be allowed to access in your area, you’re in the clear.
If you connect over a VPN with the purpose of circumventing geoblocking, it could be judged equivalent to copyright infringement in many jurisdictions.
If you just default to connect over VPN and weren’t aware that by doing so you now have access to content you otherwise would not be allowed to access in your area, you’re in the clear.
Same for me. Message appears right on the front page.
> Where is WaterBear available?
> WaterBear is available in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Bonaire, Bulgaria, Canada, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mozambique, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the USA.
This will hopefully save some people a click.
> WaterBear is available in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Bonaire, Bulgaria, Canada, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mozambique, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the USA.
This will hopefully save some people a click.
Yet they don't even SAY that if you're not in one of those countries.
[deleted]
Sorry, WaterBear is not available in your country yet but we hope to be there soon!
I used to love watching documentaries but the more you watch them the more you see how most often they are biased and edited to show the authors / producers point of view.
How a documentary is edited can mean the same facts and interview being used to show something being positive or totally negative. I guess it's true for all media but I've found this especially true for a lot of recent ones I've seen (last was Bikram yoga predator).
Btw here is an awesome video that shows how editing can do wonders for how we perceive things(1). Though this one is about reality tv, I've seen the same done in a lot of recent documentaries too.
(1) https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI
How a documentary is edited can mean the same facts and interview being used to show something being positive or totally negative. I guess it's true for all media but I've found this especially true for a lot of recent ones I've seen (last was Bikram yoga predator).
Btw here is an awesome video that shows how editing can do wonders for how we perceive things(1). Though this one is about reality tv, I've seen the same done in a lot of recent documentaries too.
(1) https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI
well, to be fair to these guys they wear their agenda pretty proudly on the home page:)
"Our mission is to drive impact around the world through great storytelling. Our platform is free, funded by carefully chosen brands dedicated to committed sustainability agendas over the next decade. These companies are vetted extensively by WaterBear to avoid greenwashing, and join the network to develop integrated partnerships over the long-term"
"Our mission is to drive impact around the world through great storytelling. Our platform is free, funded by carefully chosen brands dedicated to committed sustainability agendas over the next decade. These companies are vetted extensively by WaterBear to avoid greenwashing, and join the network to develop integrated partnerships over the long-term"
Specially today, all Netflix "documentaries" seems more like propaganda. I can't see any value in watching them.
Even most BBC documentaries are seriously flawed. Nature documentaries especially seems to use lot of fake "natural" footage.
I recently watched a documentary that showed how they create these nature scenes. Especially for insects and small animals, it is not nature rather a professionally created set in a controlled environment.
“The best historians of later times have been seduced from truth, not by their imagination, but by their reason. They far excel their predecessors in the art of deducing general principles from facts. But unhappily they have fallen into the error of distorting facts to suit general principles. They arrive at a theory from looking at some of the phenomena and the remaining phenomena they strain or curtail to suit the theory. For this purpose it is not necessary that they should assert what is absolutely false, for all questions are questions of comparison and degree. Any proposition which does not involve a contradiction in terms may possibly be true, and if all the circumstances which raise a probability in its favor be stated and enforced, and those which lead to an opposite conclusion be omitted or lightly passed over, it may appear to be demonstrated. In every human character and transaction there is a mixture of good and evil: a little exaggeration, a little suppression, a judicious use of epithets, a watchful and searching skepticism with respect to the evidence on one side, a convenient credulity with respect to every report or tradition on the other, may easily make a saint of Laud (Archbishop of Canterbury), or a tyrant of Henry IV.”
— Thomas Babington Macaulay
— Thomas Babington Macaulay
I found most people are not aware that documentaries have a scenario (screenplay). The author comes with the vision and what he wants to say before shooting any frame. I'd argue that the difference between a movie and a documentary is the documentary has a clear agenda (and that agenda is 99% of the time left wing for historical and structural reasons)
Why is always them wanting to "say something" rather than "learn something"? I'd love to watch the story of somebody genuinely trying to learn or understand something complex.
Such stuff is available. E.g. makers documenting their journey on YouTube.
Yup, YT is where that content lives. One example is Matt Whitman's 10 Minute Bible Hour channel which has several episodes where he visits and learns from other denominations, and he genuinely is there to learn and share that experience.
That’s what documentaries are about, a point of view of the people who made it. Yes, they all have a bias.
This is true of all media. The people who create it always inject some bias into how it is created and published.
This is true of all media. The people who create it always inject some bias into how it is created and published.
Agree, you could say the same thing about books. Documentaries get you into the head of their creator and can surface information to research later. They shouldn’t be seen as objective fact, the format just doesn’t allow for it.
> the more you watch them
aka Media literacy.
> the more you see how most often they are biased
What's the alternative?
> ...here is an awesome video that shows how editing can do wonders for how we perceive things ... https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI
That's quite good. Nice point about how better gear enabled the reality TV format.
I did some radio and TV stuff as a kid. (A vocational tech program. Student radio, cable public access, job shadowing, "journalism", etc.)
Transmuted me into a "Kill your television" type crank. I can't watch "the news" without yelling at the TV.
As a counterpoint: Robert X Cringley's NerdTV had the radical notion of sharing all of the source footage. Viewers could watch his edit, highlight reels, and teasers. And then they could also make their own.
Sadly, this format hasn't caught on.
Anyway. It seems to me that Zoomers will prove to be the most media literate generation. And so therefore the least susceptible to ham-fisted narrative techniques. Certainly compared to Boomers.
aka Media literacy.
> the more you see how most often they are biased
What's the alternative?
> ...here is an awesome video that shows how editing can do wonders for how we perceive things ... https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI
That's quite good. Nice point about how better gear enabled the reality TV format.
I did some radio and TV stuff as a kid. (A vocational tech program. Student radio, cable public access, job shadowing, "journalism", etc.)
Transmuted me into a "Kill your television" type crank. I can't watch "the news" without yelling at the TV.
As a counterpoint: Robert X Cringley's NerdTV had the radical notion of sharing all of the source footage. Viewers could watch his edit, highlight reels, and teasers. And then they could also make their own.
Sadly, this format hasn't caught on.
Anyway. It seems to me that Zoomers will prove to be the most media literate generation. And so therefore the least susceptible to ham-fisted narrative techniques. Certainly compared to Boomers.
Sometimes the bias and liberties taken for persuasion is glaringly obvious, including to people who agree with the overall premise.
One Michael Moore film, I saw at the cinema in the neighborhood of an expensive liberal arts college, where the people generally have a broad education, and are (like myself) left-leaning by US standards. What I most appreciated at the time about the experience was Moore would do some non-journalistic thing (e.g., what seemed to be a dishonest editing cut) and the crowd would instantly erupt with laughter -- like there he goes again, that mischievous imp.
(I haven't seen enough Moore to guess whether this was intentional, and this might've been before the style of The Daily Show got popular.)
One of my recent societal concerns is that, although we might still be able to notice bias and manipulation, we collectively don't believe as much in truth and critical thinking as we used to. If the cinema anecdote happened now, would people who can see the liberties implicitly think "this is obviously not something we would do ourselves, but Moore will be Moore, ha ha", or would those people think "yes, go, team, be angry, and shout about the enemy, by all means necessary".
I think I understand and am sympathetic the latter perspective, given some of the horrible problems that have reached a boiling point in recent years (and hopefully will finally be solved). But I'm concerned about even some college professors throwing out the baby with that boiling bathwater.
One Michael Moore film, I saw at the cinema in the neighborhood of an expensive liberal arts college, where the people generally have a broad education, and are (like myself) left-leaning by US standards. What I most appreciated at the time about the experience was Moore would do some non-journalistic thing (e.g., what seemed to be a dishonest editing cut) and the crowd would instantly erupt with laughter -- like there he goes again, that mischievous imp.
(I haven't seen enough Moore to guess whether this was intentional, and this might've been before the style of The Daily Show got popular.)
One of my recent societal concerns is that, although we might still be able to notice bias and manipulation, we collectively don't believe as much in truth and critical thinking as we used to. If the cinema anecdote happened now, would people who can see the liberties implicitly think "this is obviously not something we would do ourselves, but Moore will be Moore, ha ha", or would those people think "yes, go, team, be angry, and shout about the enemy, by all means necessary".
I think I understand and am sympathetic the latter perspective, given some of the horrible problems that have reached a boiling point in recent years (and hopefully will finally be solved). But I'm concerned about even some college professors throwing out the baby with that boiling bathwater.
Moore’s films are HEAVILY biased. Just him trying to depict school lunches in France is enough. I’ve eaten at a high school in the south of France. It’s 0% like what he picked as an example and said all of France is like this. And that’s just one tiny example from his films where there’s a CLEAR agenda. What I hate the most is he tries to pass it off as if it’s somehow good journalism.
It didn’t take long being subscribed to /r/documentaries to see that pretty much everything trending there was part of pushing some agenda or narrative for political/subvertive purposes.
Mainstream news outlets have been caught doing this. Australian ABC News (government funded) deceptively edited a Navy ceremony that showed the Governor-General & Navy Chief ogling over young women twerking [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/apr/15/australian-nav...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/apr/15/australian-nav...
> impact films
Is an “impact film” one which is optimized for conversion of non-believers to a cause, as opposed to being optimized for education?
I am a “believer” in the green agenda. I get it. I support it. But I would like to learn more about the scientific reality of climate and nature, and a lot of these films turn me away because they just feel like emotional propaganda.
Is an “impact film” one which is optimized for conversion of non-believers to a cause, as opposed to being optimized for education?
I am a “believer” in the green agenda. I get it. I support it. But I would like to learn more about the scientific reality of climate and nature, and a lot of these films turn me away because they just feel like emotional propaganda.
You can't expect more when the discussion behind-closed-door is to whether "global-warming" or "climate-change" is a better term to get people to lean one way or the other. It's the idea that story telling is more important than actual and plain scientific evidence that will be the downfall of these important issues (that are being manipulated for short-term profits by green-agenda-profiteers).
Don’t get me wrong, storytelling is important, and these kinds of films are important for the sector of the population that still doesn’t get it, and still needs to hear the call to action, but I’m not sure I would call them documentaries.
Our brains have evolved to be attracted to stories and story telling. I'm not exactly knocking it down when it comes to social situation (or even business/advertising), but when it's being used in the context of presenting factual evidence it's being used as a brain-hack to propagate an agenda.
Storytelling is important because when you just tell people about a 1 degree (C) rise in average global temperatures they don’t understand because they know they can’t even tell the difference between 21C and 20C, so what’s the big deal?
Most people simply don’t have enough relevant education to even know what to make of the raw data.
Most people simply don’t have enough relevant education to even know what to make of the raw data.
If they want people to agree with them, they can only present the fact and maybe encourage people to educate themselves and be inquisitive. They can't trick people into "believing". You don't "believe" in science. We don't need more religions.
One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" as if it's some sort of a fucking belief system, a church, or a religion.
One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" as if it's some sort of a fucking belief system, a church, or a religion.
If someone chooses to not believe the moon landings were real, fine. But when it comes to the climate, we’re all in this together whether you believe it or not, so there’s a little bit more urgency to get everyone on board.
So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough.
Ideally, the storytelling around the data is the educational part. It should explain what this data means and why people should care by releasing it to things they do understand.
So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough.
Ideally, the storytelling around the data is the educational part. It should explain what this data means and why people should care by releasing it to things they do understand.
> So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough.
Again, it's not a matter of belief. When you call them "unbeliever" you're inviting doubt into it. This also goes to another vexing thing on the issue of how the general uneducated public deals with "climate change", the likes of online warriors and talking-point media personality and politicians, which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable. This too will not help prevent further damage to the environment, no the opposite imo, it's one of the main reasons people continue to talk and talk and talk, and no actual preventative measures are being taken that actually can make a difference. All of this is because the issue was politicized by almost all sides from the beginning.
This is exactly the kind of mentality that's giving fire power to the corporations and the people behind them that give two shits about the environment, the future of the planet, or life quality of next generations, to come up with counter propaganda that sways people the other way. So far it's working. It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good.
Again, it's not a matter of belief. When you call them "unbeliever" you're inviting doubt into it. This also goes to another vexing thing on the issue of how the general uneducated public deals with "climate change", the likes of online warriors and talking-point media personality and politicians, which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable. This too will not help prevent further damage to the environment, no the opposite imo, it's one of the main reasons people continue to talk and talk and talk, and no actual preventative measures are being taken that actually can make a difference. All of this is because the issue was politicized by almost all sides from the beginning.
This is exactly the kind of mentality that's giving fire power to the corporations and the people behind them that give two shits about the environment, the future of the planet, or life quality of next generations, to come up with counter propaganda that sways people the other way. So far it's working. It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good.
> that are being manipulated for short-term profits by green-agenda-profiteers
I kind of agree with the larger point about story telling vs evidence, but this cuts both ways. Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction (excerpt from internal Republican strategy memo):
> “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change sounds like “you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it [1]
> The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced. [2]
Reading the memo, he also goes on to suggest that the scientific consensus is closing against them, but the public is still uncertain, so there’s a window of opportunity for the party to spread doubt about this, and finding and promoting counter-experts works best.
I think, at the time, all these strategies were effective.
To be fair to (the strategist) Frank Luntz, he later had a change of heart, and now does the same stuff for policies on the other side of the issue.
[1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/45/LuntzResearch.Memo.p...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.c...
I kind of agree with the larger point about story telling vs evidence, but this cuts both ways. Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction (excerpt from internal Republican strategy memo):
> “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change sounds like “you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it [1]
> The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced. [2]
Reading the memo, he also goes on to suggest that the scientific consensus is closing against them, but the public is still uncertain, so there’s a window of opportunity for the party to spread doubt about this, and finding and promoting counter-experts works best.
I think, at the time, all these strategies were effective.
To be fair to (the strategist) Frank Luntz, he later had a change of heart, and now does the same stuff for policies on the other side of the issue.
[1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/45/LuntzResearch.Memo.p...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.c...
> Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction
Actually my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative in terms of how they're politicizing the issue. Taxing us normal citizens for carbon emissions just as a feel good mechanism (concentrically just like those idiotic lockdowns) while creating exemptions for the themselves and their fellow sleazeballs who go to climate change summits on private jets.
Actually my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative in terms of how they're politicizing the issue. Taxing us normal citizens for carbon emissions just as a feel good mechanism (concentrically just like those idiotic lockdowns) while creating exemptions for the themselves and their fellow sleazeballs who go to climate change summits on private jets.
> my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative
In my view, most people probably wouldn't have an opinion on climate science absent external influence, since they don't encounter it in their day-to-day life. So, various groups vie for influence (academia, businesses, political parties, media outlets, etc) and that determines public opinion. But just because both sides try to influence the public, I wouldn't say they are the same - which side is closer to the facts seems like a separate issue than how public opinion works.
From your other comments:
> One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier"
> which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable
> It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good
It sounds like you might be skeptical (although I'm not sure). I can only share some facts I have found convincing:
- 97-100% of climate scientists think global warming is real [1]
- The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for 100 years [2]
- Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, and we use a lot of fossil fuels
- We can measure historical CO2 by looking at air bubbles trapped in the ice in Antartica. It also correlates with estimated temperatures (by using isotopes like Deuterium). [3] [4]
- We already have ~25% higher CO2 concentrations than the entire ice core record going back 800,000 years. This increase happened in the last ~60 years. [5]
Didn't down vote you BTW.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking...
[3] http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-co...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
In my view, most people probably wouldn't have an opinion on climate science absent external influence, since they don't encounter it in their day-to-day life. So, various groups vie for influence (academia, businesses, political parties, media outlets, etc) and that determines public opinion. But just because both sides try to influence the public, I wouldn't say they are the same - which side is closer to the facts seems like a separate issue than how public opinion works.
From your other comments:
> One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier"
> which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable
> It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good
It sounds like you might be skeptical (although I'm not sure). I can only share some facts I have found convincing:
- 97-100% of climate scientists think global warming is real [1]
- The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for 100 years [2]
- Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, and we use a lot of fossil fuels
- We can measure historical CO2 by looking at air bubbles trapped in the ice in Antartica. It also correlates with estimated temperatures (by using isotopes like Deuterium). [3] [4]
- We already have ~25% higher CO2 concentrations than the entire ice core record going back 800,000 years. This increase happened in the last ~60 years. [5]
Didn't down vote you BTW.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking...
[3] http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-co...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
Yes, I view any kind of "story telling" as a dark pattern, in anything other than works of fiction.
"Storytelling" is a bad way to argue any point.
"Storytelling" is a bad way to argue any point.
Storytelling is the only way to argue any point, it’s just about what order you present facts in and what you include or choose to lie about.
> Storytelling is the only way to argue any point
Depends on your definition of storytelling, but generally this is just false.
Depends on your definition of storytelling, but generally this is just false.
Propaganda is still propaganda, regardless of whether it's used for "good" or for evil.
From watching hundreds of similar documentaries over the years, these here look exactly the kind that I'd avoid watching because they manipulate the truth and tell half-truths (unnecessarily) just to propagate their agenda, which is usually not exactly enviromental, but seeming like they are care.
From watching hundreds of similar documentaries over the years, these here look exactly the kind that I'd avoid watching because they manipulate the truth and tell half-truths (unnecessarily) just to propagate their agenda, which is usually not exactly enviromental, but seeming like they are care.
Could you elaborate on what their agenda would be, if "not exactly" environmental?
Seeming like they care, either for population karma points or for a more sinister reason like control. Like how the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation.
edit: regarding downvotes I really don't understand the HN crowd anymore. It's like finger on the button ready to disregard anything that slightly differs from their world view. Here's a guardian link for those who are in doubt https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-compani...
edit: regarding downvotes I really don't understand the HN crowd anymore. It's like finger on the button ready to disregard anything that slightly differs from their world view. Here's a guardian link for those who are in doubt https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-compani...
The down votes likely aren't because people don't believe the oil industry spends money to control the climate change conversation. It is more likely your assumption that the documentaries at this site are somehow connected to this or a similar non-environmental effort given the organizations involved with the site.
You're challenging received wisdom, status quo. Wear the downvotes proudly.
I treat arguing on HN as batting practice. I write to understand, refine my messaging.
It helps to treat arguing as performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking
I treat arguing on HN as batting practice. I write to understand, refine my messaging.
It helps to treat arguing as performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking
[deleted]
What would a perfect documentary film look like? Like many people, I don’t trust most of the media anymore, especially after reading Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. This includes documentaries.
Given the sorry state of the situation, what can an aspiring documentary maker do to win the audience back? I am willing to pay reasonable price, I am guessing there are others like me
Given the sorry state of the situation, what can an aspiring documentary maker do to win the audience back? I am willing to pay reasonable price, I am guessing there are others like me
I noticed there's a way to add a payment method, but I don't see any paid content on the site...
I think that people "dedicated to the future of the planet" and "avoiding greenwashing" should mention that online video generates 60% of world data flow (~300MT CO2/year) [1], and that carbon dioxide emissions are also paradoxically one of the reasons why these documentaries are created.
This video is bad for climate change. Thanks for watching ! [2]
[1] https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-onl...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJn6pja_l8s
This video is bad for climate change. Thanks for watching ! [2]
[1] https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-onl...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJn6pja_l8s
We have literally 100 bigger problems to solve before we worry about the climate impact of digital transmission.
This will just be solved as a happy side effect of getting our electrical grid off hydrocarbons.
This will just be solved as a happy side effect of getting our electrical grid off hydrocarbons.
Sadly not available in India yet !
"We’re so sorry!
Sorry, WaterBear is not available in your country yet but we hope to be there soon!"
I hate region blocking.
I hate region blocking.
I love that they just have A decline button for cookies. I’m so sick of the manage button, such terrible ux
its not free!
Not available in my country ...
Region filters for IP addresses are just iditoic.
Region filters for IP addresses are just iditoic.
I guess I'll keep pirating.