Who Can You Trust? Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #4
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- In which John Green teaches you how to assess the sources of information you find on the internet. The growing suspicion of expertise is a growing problem on the internet, and it can be very difficult to figure out which sources are authoritative. In this episode John offers some strategies to help you identify credible sources and take into account a source's point of view.
Special thanks to our partners from MediaWise who helped create this series:
The Poynter Institute
The Stanford History Education Group (sheg.stanford.edu)
Follow MediaWise and their fact-checking work across social:
/ mediawise
/ mediawise
/ mediawise
/ mediawise
MediaWise is supported by Google.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Eric Prestemon, Sam Buck, Mark Brouwer, Naman Goel, Patrick Wiener II, Nathan Catchings, Efrain R. Pedroza, Brandon Westmoreland, dorsey, Indika Siriwardena, James Hughes, Kenneth F Penttinen, Trevin Beattie, Satya Ridhima Parvathaneni, Erika & Alexa Saur, Glenn Elliott, Justin Zingsheim, Jessica Wode, Kathrin Benoit, Tom Trval, Jason Saslow, Nathan Taylor, Brian Thomas Gossett, Khaled El Shalakany, SR Foxley, Yasenia Cruz, Eric Koslow, Caleb Weeks, Tim Curwick, D.A. Noe, Shawn Arnold, Malcolm Callis, Advait Shinde, William McGraw, Andrei Krishkevich, Rachel Bright, Jirat, Ian Dundore
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
This Crash Course course is so different from all the others. It shows you how to learn and check your work, and is not teaching a specific subject. It reminds me of Crash Course Study Skills which is still one of my favorite courses and I can already see this one coming into my top 3!
While it might not be a subject commonplace in formal education, it certainly is an extremely important and useful topic in today's age. Some countries, including mine, have started (or are looking into) teaching this in schools as one, even if on a pilot basis. I, for one, am all for it.
It is an excellent topic for a course. Too often it is assumed that a liberal arts education teaches critical thinking skills, including evaluation of the evidence. This idea has been called into question, I think correctly (though I still cling to the old idea that a liberal arts education is inherently a good thing). I think the best way to learn how to evaluate information broadly is to teach it directly. All schools should be doing this.
This is already my 1st
As a Wikipedia editor, I have to say it isn’t all black and white. It’s also kinda light blue.
And if it's red, it just isn't done yet~
stuff on wikipedia on WITNESS LEE or WATCHMAN Nee were put out by Living Stream Ministry, seriously skewed.
[citation needed]
I would expect a Wikipedia editor to say something like that.😂😂
@@garymckay2929 I grew up in the Living Stream ministries ":Witness Lee" cult
0:42 -- thank you, John Green, I now know exactly what I want to do with my life. I'm going to become an expert on climate science, read every book published from June 1837 to January 1901, and join the Illuminati.
not worth the time, bin there done that. I am the nobody.
Hahaha, I know you can't read a lot of beliefs on the internet seriously, but I have to confess I have a morbid fascination with observing conspiracy theorists online just to see how they think and why. Maybe it'd help solve the issue if the root causes can be observed.
*_Thank you CrashCourse for the informative discussions._*
*_I'm a Chinese freedom advocate and I used to naively believe that the internet age means more transparency, more empowerment of the ordinary people. As I believed that the internet would make it harder for authoritarian regimes and big businesses to silence individuals and keep the dictators’ dirt under the carpet._*
*_However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime’s success in total internet surveillance means that Chinese individuals’ voices are not better heard. On the contrary, the CCP regime has used anonymity on the internet to make the world a more opaque, less transparent, more dangerous place._*
*_Use UA-cam as an example, the ratio of Chinese language videos critical of the CCP's human rights record & expansionist agenda vs CCP's own propaganda videos (disguised as "casual UA-camr's account") is about 1 to 100. Some CCP's misinformation accounts on UA-cam upload a new video every few minutes, and upload the same misinformation video under different sensational titles to several accounts within the same hour, in order to achieve the “drowning dissenting voices” effect, with great success. The CCP also use some of the methods such as phantom clicks, computer generated likes/dislikes, fake comments, concerted malicious reporting against legitimate videos/comments, etc. to to boost its own propaganda videos’ view counts and cheat UA-cam's algorithms._*
*_The CCP's aim is to eventually create confusion, sow social division and mistrust in all liberal democracies by massaging the idea that “democracy is hypocritical, full of dark secrets, and hidden discrimination, your vote is useless” into its audience’s head. (At this stage its focus is Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia… some of its neighbouring democratic “test laboratory”). So for anyone who loves freedom and cares about the survival of the liberal democratic ideal, we must think about how to protect our fragile liberty and democracy in this dangerous times. We need to protect democracy using technological, legislative, political means. We need to do it with a great sense of urgency._*
read game-theory....
A very insightful comment. Good luck and be ready for tons of Wumao to spam your inbox
*BOLD*
fact check this shieet
“democracy is hypocritical, full of dark secrets, and hidden discrimination, your vote is useless”
Don't really need any chinese propaganda to spread that idea.
3:34 To some degree, but not others. One of the problems with, 'Trust this person, they are an expert.' is that expertise is limited in scope. Your neighbor probably has a much better idea about how to grow vegetables in a garden setting in your particular slice of Indiana than a random Agronomist would. Agronomy is not gardening.
My background is in food science. I know more than a random person on the street about the meat industry. I know less about the meat industry than someone without academic credentials who has worked in that industry. You should trust me, unless you know that you know more than I do.
I knew more about the baltic crusades than my professor of medieval history. She had credentials that would incline someone to trust her over me if we disagreed. I was just a STEM undergrad. Why should anyone trust me? Isn't she an expert? Yes, in her field. Her field was medieval French and English literature, specifically Norman literature. She was an expert on it. She had done extensive research. She had not done any research on the medieval baltic as it transitioned from a mostly pagan frontier into a catholic crusader state. It was not her field.
Also related to your first example: You can in general trust that people know how to achieve what they themselves have achieved. Your neighbor probably knows how to have a great middle sized garden, but probably knows nothing about larger projects.
A guy who's moderately fit probably knows how to get to that point, but probably not further
@@eahere One's knowledge is not necessarily limited to his/her achievements. Pretty sure a guy who's moderately fit knows that a more rigorous exercise routine with proper diet and rest will improve his fitness level but he has his own reasons not to put forth the extra effort.
This needs more likes so that John can see. I really want someone to give a constructive feedback about this.
He was using an easy to understand example to introduce the concept, it didn't have to be perfect.
AngelHQ "all analogies break at some point"
"Generally speaking, those who work professionally in a field or have done a lot of work in it are better equipped than, you know, random people off the street." - A good thought when dealing with our current political system.
Aj Gerardi authoritarianism
Those who work professionally in our current political system are much better equipped *and* much worse .
sigh.
Authority on Brand managment.
The problem with this OP thought is that effort != results.
Intention doesn't help.
Italy has had issues with damn breaks due to geological impetus.
Nevertheless, if we are to claim everything is *deterministically* predictable, the geologists may have been at fault.
Could you blame Newton for his failure to grind the lenses, that allowed Einstein to make contradictory observations?
Love this series. I want to show it to my grandparents but they're deaf. Are these videos going to get any official captions at some point?
Thank you for this series. As a high school teacher in the online forum, this is tremendously valuable (among the dozens of other Crash Course videos I hijacked -- with proper attribution!).
Also beware groupthink. If more than half the people around you agree with you constantly, it's time to start meeting new people.
fat4eyes this is the counterpoint to trusting expertise. I wish John had gone into more depth about this because its where the skepticism about global warming comes from
I'm glad more than half the people i talk with agree the world is round.
@@qwertyman1511 Bring sources man
@@bookstore7842 i can't see forever.
i've looked outside a plane window.
astral observations.
the alternatives are even less believeable.
@@qwertyman1511 HAHAHAHA
Thank you crash course! This is an invaluable civil service, teaching us skills to circumvent the mind control attempts of fake news and social media that is literally being used (like a weapon) to brainwash and control people. Education like this empowers us to be independent thinking citizens, who question (and verify) before we react.
Empathy? Absolutely.
There is no personal truth, only personal perspective. Read news with a mind toward why they wrote it.
Clifton Bardwell WOW
Instead of focusing on trust, build your ability to judge arguments.
Yet another excellent installment, full of relevant information AND how to be a responsible adult online when reading or seeking information. I was also very glad you covered the aspect of individuals and News Organizations owning their mistake, issuing full-disclosure, and explaining the process that led to the mistake. These are the places I rely on for integrity and professionalism. This, to me, is what clearly separates a valid organization from those that put their click-ratio and site traffic above ethical journalism and seeking to be the best they can be for the public good.
Thank you for this Series, I have been linking the Playlist to everyone I know, it is incredibly important in this day and age.
This Digital Information about Navigating Digital Information has led me to better Navigate Digital Information, including but not limited to this Digital Information.
This is so helpful! I'm currently teaching online due to COVID-19 and trying to teach research skills to teens online is a LOT.
As soon as you said where the term think-tank comes from i looked it up because that seemed neat but even just the first couple of results seem to state that the term think-tank predates the existence of combat tanks by several decades at least. Do you have some source to back up this claim? Or did you include that fact on purpose just to see if we'd do our homework this time. In which case, did I do good? Do I get a gold star now?
You did as good as I did... better. At least I stopped watching the video to come here and start looking for information. Now, back to watching for more examples on no source given.
@@theenkryptedpress I'm seeing that the term "think tank" was used to refer specifically to the brain (and that usage died out), but the modern meaning of a group of people working together to get new ideas came from WW2.
Good, I am sure its true, so what is your source?
Thank you John Green & Crash Course for teaching us about everything. We need y'all like never before.
Don't get me wrong, I want for this course to have a bunch of episodes, but at the same time, I want for it to be over already to share the whole playlist with people I know urgently need to watch it (but also, may not subscribe and therefore would miss important episodes).
I AGREE!! I feel the same way! I want to give it to my mother.
I just sent it to my roommates, we debate daily and most of the time their “references” are non existent or false
this video should have as many views as their are people on the earth who have access to the Internet and are under 70.
Can you activate the closed captions, please? This Crash Course must be fully comprehensible to everybody around the world. Thank you and great job! :-)
This should be a mandatory video to watch in the US XD
This is one of the scariest (hence one of the most important) issues we are facing these days. And not these days, as people were lied to for centuries. But now, with information spreading like a wildfire, people are so vulnerable to all the misinformation and manipulation. And often they're decent people, trying to make ends meet and not really interested in politics and science, they leave it to the "smart people" with trust and peace. But then some blockhead decides to become an Internet sensation via spreading outrageous news and that's the stuff that gets everyone interested - meaning their starting off point is not reality, but misleading information. Thank you Crash Course for all your amazing educational videos and for being so awesome to come up with those series too!
Dang. John Green has gotten older. I was just cramming his World History series, and he looks like he has been working hard. Love the work you do, hard to think that the guy I was just watching is now this guy.
Best series ever made! So relevant and such a great educational tool, thank you!
Don't annotations... not exist anymore? I could have sworn I read something about UA-cam removing them and people being upset about it...
I certainly haven't seen an annotation in a while, but I'm mostly on the app, and I don't think they've ever worked there.
They don't exist anymore.
I don't think they do anymore, but even if they did, I don't think they worked through phones or tvs.
What? Annotations are gone? Since when?
Update: they recently removed the feature from all videos hosted by youtube.
They do not render on mobile.
they can not be created or added.
current annotations on old videos can still be seen if visited through certain browsers(mostly desktops).
@@Linckel that sucks, but you are right, i checked.
Absolutely loving this series, thank you so much for making it. I'm showing it to everyone
this is the most important series you have ever produced. Thank you.
In my 31 years of life I thought a think tank was named for a person suspended in a fluid filled tank, where their needs were met by tubes a la the matrix, where their only function was to think.
Or like Minority Report!
That was unsettling and hilarious.
No you didn't lol stop lying
eh, we're on the internet so since this is possible put of a billion people or so, welcome to the club
@@jaredmallard9986 even if he's lying, why bother?
I rlly need to get some more crash courses in my brain, I haven't been on this channel in a bit and I am glad to stumble upon it again
This series' topic is probably the most important in the information age.
Couldn't agree more. Well said John Green. I really love your show on CrashCourse, especially the World History series. Credits to you and your team for making learning fun.
Hey John,
Genuinely curious: What do you make of the idea of "corporate media" having an "establishment bias"? (Not necessarily a bias towards the left or right side of the spectrum, but more a bias in favour of "not rocking the boat too much".) This is mainly relevant for politics, and I do think that with how much predictions by political analysts and the media overall were so off for the entire duration of the 2016 election cycle, there is some evidence to support the existance of such a bias.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about secret backroom deals by the media at all, more about the nature of media companies etc.)
lateral reading is important when checking for trustworthiness. thank you for this video
I'm disappointed that this video needs to exist, but I'm so glad that it does.
I know right? It’s just so sad that fact checking needs to be a CC skill
@@leo-hao I suppose the other problem is that anyone that needs to watch this probably isn't going to.
Wow. This is some spooky stuff. Thanks for all the hard work. I've enjoyed watching crash course since I was a freshman in high school and it has made a difference on many an exam.
P.s. go empathy!
CrashCourse is the channel to watch and learn about any topic. Thanks, guys
Don't know if anybody will see this from my school but this will help you with your tracker. Question 1 and 2's answer: 1:29. Then Question 3 is 2:20
Meg Eaton you are a lifesaver
I notice the important point. We have to trust people.
Thanks guys you are adding changes to my viewpoint.
I trust john green
"In Green we trust"
Yo ssi +hank green
Lmao
The internet would be a better place if more people watched this course.
John, about that *Venn Diagram.* It shows exactly what you said it doesn't show. Since the 3 circles overlap there IS someone who can do all 3. That's what that diagram means. If you wanted it to show what you said it shows, you should have drawn the 3 circles to that they don't overlap in the middle.
Long time subscriber but my college class just brought me back here
Guys I think you are doing a great thing by having this Crash Course!
Keep it up!
This is too golden, John! Think of the gold billon prices...
0:32 correction
in your Venn diagram there is a section that all three sets share, that mean anybody in that section is a part of all three sets. not nobody.
I have to admit, I found it strange that this course is very vocal about use of Wikipedia and even has the Wikipedia logo in the background. Don’t get me wrong, I love Wikipedia and use it all the time, but it just made me suspicious. So I tried out some lateral reading!
First, I found out that Wikipedia is supported by donation and the Wikimedia Foundation. They are generally non-profit (from what I understand.)
Then I looked up the Poynter Institute and the Stanford group listed during the video and in the description. They are non profit also, and work towards education against misinformation.
Then I looked around on the internet to see if there was any link between the foundations or any glaring issues. So far, I’ve found nothing. Is there anything that I’ve missed? Anything I should try differently? I’m new to lateral reading and would love feedback.
(Sorry for the long comment, but I thought it was important.)
I'm curious - don't search engines like Google filter their results based on what they know about you? What kind of YT videos you watch, what you search for, and which websites you visit after googling something?
Of course, if you keep in mind what websites you're reading, and what kind of perspective they have, that's less of a problem.
I found better results on my smartphone because I use it rarely. Websites I was looking for I could not find on my often used computer, but could find on my smartphone. There is definitely a large bias based on past searches.
@@superfiver they build a profile based not only on your Google account, but on your IP address (which is different for your phone and PC). The IP address profile is also what they use to sell ads
@@kyle-silver Do you know if they just do the public address or is it the private address. With cookies, they could probably grab both.
Use other search engines.
anonimize your accesspoint(vpn, disable cookies)
or use duckduck go, a search engine that doesn't employ such algos
Used lateral reading to understand John Green's stance on the Mountain Goats, and I have to agree he's right.
*_..."Annotations" [_**_05:23_**_]-years ago-had to be turned On in the Client UA-cam Settings..._*
Can closed captioning be added to this course? All the other videos in the series have it, except this one...please help!
Thank you for sharing this. I am glad that you took the time to explain this. You made it very easy to understand.
Excellent translation 👏👏
its about time you did some videos i missed the literature ones when they finished
Anyone else stop this to google whether John Green really has published Ariana Grande on the moon fan fiction?
Nice. I might add that simply citing polls, interviews, etc has little weight unless details are available (where, when, how many, how they were reached, etc)
Brilliance!! Thank you 💖⚡
"I hope that our few remaining friends give up on trying to save us" 🎶
At 4:06 on the book says: the first pop START instead of star!
It’s still rough AND WHAT HAPPENED TO BEING GENTLE??
lateral reading and authority in research is what i learned the hard way when writing my thesis and preparing for my phd (which i never finished) - however, what i can tell from my experience in (educational) research: even lateral reading can and does lead to biases for and against viewpoints, because you tend to stick to a "core authority", may that be an individual or a group (mostly there´s kind of a research-school or "tradition of research" where certain lines of authorities are quoted and requoted. it is a science in and of itself, that is, reading the index of a publication before reading the article/ book itself, to get an idea on what the paper built its content on, before investing the time to reading the actual article. if and when certain authorities appear in the used literature for the publication, only then the publication is worth reading.
does that make sense?
to put in a nutshell: as researcher i learned how to read laterally professionally, by examining the literature used in a publication, to see if it as enough "credible sources" to actually invest in reading the paper itself.
then there is other criteria, which researchers notoriously look out for: is the publication
a) in a peer reviewed journal, or a single publication book, collaboration, editor publication and so on and on
b) what "class" does the journal fall into (A, B, C, D - A being the top notch journal where it is VERY VERY VERY VERY hard to get a publication into, whereas D is maybe struggling to find researchers who actually want to publish through them)
c) does it have original research in them with good
c-1) methodology
c-2) research design
c-3) evaluation
c-4) ...
etc.
you see where i am going to... its incredibly complicated at times and it takes immense time and careful thinking and re-thinking.
what comes afterwards of course, is examining like 100.000 papers and other publications to find the right ones to
a) build your research on (the good ones)
b) distance your research from (the meh ones)
c) to steer yourself to (hopefully something good... maybe?)
d) stop procrastinating and actually reading the stuff
:-)
i´m really sorry for the length.
go, nerdfighters, go!
Bravo Esraa 👏
I find it difficult to differentiate between news and propaganda. This hasn't really helped, unfortunately, but I love the series.
Trust is earned not given away
And what needs to be done to earn it? Generally expertise and recognition are what we have to go off of. Expecting a personal experience with that person or, worse, just selectively choosing examples which just justify your personal perspective, is not a good way to have others earn your trust.
@@6ThreeSided9 Fact checking at your own personal level. Pay attention to their critics and their arguments. In other words, be a skeptic. Be skeptical of their motives and their sources.
@@spazzmaticus1542 but don't be an infinite skeptic, a smidge of blind faith is always required.
Where are you from, CrashCourse?
when you said that your neighbor was planting for 40 years and that she knew more about planting than you that reminds me of the authority that i have about sharks
I love this series!
I agree, but sometimes people know a lot about a topic, but still know nothing about practical application and then an amateur makes an observation he cannot explain, but has a practical value to it. Knowledge is really a difficult topic and no-one is objective.
Very well done episode, thanks John! All stuff that has been said, but told in very good way.
John Green seems a bit more tired in this video more than usual. I'm just imagining him and the team working tirelessly with little sleep making sure to make this video as unbiased and trustworthy as possible from every side.
The issuing of the correction and how the wrong info came about helps shoe readers how the bad info came about and what’s be done to prevent more misinformation in the future
Can Crash Course put captions on this video? I am a deaf individual and I love that Crash Course has them usually, however they are not on this video. please and thanks in advance :)
How do you feel about Information from a source that credits their opposition or criticises themselves. Say liberal finding positives in conservative or conservative addressing their own issues and vice versa. I find myself 100% invested in listening to whats being said.
TL;DR: Like the vid, keep it up, I'm (skeptically) hopeful this course will help the way it has the potential too.
Long follower of your channel, and I need to say that I really loved this video. Very entertaining, and important (, reliable :p) information to get out. I wish all of North America would follow this course. I personally was happy to find out that I already practice a number of these skills outlined while reading news online, and it surprises me that many don't. This idea of paying attention to how you observe the world (or absorb information) seems so obvious yet it certainly feels like it's an under utilized skill these days.
I think you hit the nail this week when you mentioned how, I'm paraphrasing, taking information into context (or perspective) online shouldn't really be a new idea. This is the reason for the Scientific Method; to provide a structure to generate truthful information, something which is taught to all (in Canada at least). I'm not saying this system can't be abused, just that barriers are put in place allowing a content consumer to offload the burden of evaluating trustworthiness to the "system". This is seen in other areas as well, such as Media (through corrections and journalistic integrity) and I'd argue the evolutionary(flames begin here...) development of Empathy itself. It's conceivable that the reasons these systems were implemented in the first place boils down to the public susceptibility to well orchestrated misinformation.
I think the true problem at hand is that no such system has been put in place online. The skills taught in this course are important to have, however, I think, will only help some (likely only those in the "knowledge bubble" already...:p). I guess I hope that this course will at least scare/rally others by showcasing the effort required to actually consume content. Potentially get a ball rolling towards implementing such a structure online as well? I'm not sure what this solution may look like look like, (I do think one could exist) But I certainly am sure that there will always be gullible people out there. At least, every individual will always be gullible occasionally. Greedy people willing to take advantage of this aren't going away either. And since the internet has become the public's primary source of information, I think we should start considering the communication of it's information along the lines of journalistic integrity and the Scientific Method.
That said this is an opinion from the mind of a Quality Control Engineer in training... so add that to your perspective while contemplating. ;p
I just subscribed to your channel and I love your content. It is so important to learn something new on a regular basis. Thank you!
This is an awesome video
why did i get assigned homework that was to watch this video and take notes smh someone help.
honestly i can relate
👍🏼 good job esraa
0:32 Good point, but your Venn diagram *does* show an intersection of the three sets.
The intersection can still be an empty set.
+
Great videos!
In John Green we trust.
She is my doughter who translate this video love u esraa
Now my goal is to become an expert on climate change, Victorian literature, and the Illuminati.
Also hello John Green, nice to see you here 👋👋
I really hope there is some content on the media's use of adjectives and how they use them to sensationalize a story, any story....every story.
Take perspective of cap into account
Please bring back crash course mythology.😭😭
AEI, Cato, Mises, and Reason are right!
Really interesting and cool topic
I LOVE YOUR BOOKS!!
Actually the Nile flows South. I saw it in a UA-cam video.
I love this guy and i read his book before the fault in our stars and it’s amazing read it
Extraordinarily important addendum: The Mountain Goats announced a new album yesterday (Jan. 28th).
What a great video, thanks CrashCourse!
I appreciate your attempt to use vocabulary to make our analysis of information sources less impassioned. I am not sure that “perspective” is always the right word to use. “Bias” often does have negative connotations of unfairness, it is true. But it doesn’t always, and when it does, it is not always undeserved. There have been lots of interest, for example, of unconscious racial biases. I am not sure “racial perspective” really captures what we are talking about. And when news organisations underestimated the support for Trump, both in the primaries and general elections, it wasn’t that they just had a different “perspective”. They got it wrong (not as badly as some thought, but still wrong), and that perspective was based in large part because of biases on how they collect information. I am just a bit skeptical that tweaks in language are the best ways to deal with substantive issues. However, as a writer and educator, you may have a different perspective.
I love green brothers.
Greetings to those who have made this excellent and accurate Arabic translation
yes good job form "إسراء ياقوت" give you 100/100 this Arabic translation
I wish I knew how to add subtitles in Portuguese, I really wanted to show these to some people here in Brazil!
My rule of thumb when it comes to the internet, is to take everything with a grain of salt. Even with a trusted source, I still take it with a micro-grain of salt, because I know mistakes can happen. Recently, I learned that pestilence isn't one of the 4 horsemen, but was originally named conquest. A quick search gave speculation on why the change happened, but not knowing the "source's" authoritative position, it's speculative at best. This is made worse by the fact that I'm looking up info that's about religion, culture, and history, two of which are notoriously inconsistent due to human nature, and the last one is subject to whoever won (or lost in some cases, the Lost Cause narrative is a prime example of the loser rewriting history). I take the extra effort to preface some of my comments saying that I'm not an expert on the subject and to double check my statements. If I'm confident with my info, I'll link sources. Whether or not people will actually inform themselves, is another matter.
I notice that the Daily Kos/Wire comparison equates the two. But as you said, Daily Wire claims irreverence (showing a lack of respect for people or things that are generally taken seriously), which means they admit that they should NOT be taken seriously, while the other wants you to believe everything they say.
5:15 Too bad that annotations were removed from UA-cam :(
Arent they still there on desktop?
Thank you for this series of videos. I hope to learn more about navigating information. Also bring up the Daily Wire was a risky move I commend you for :)
I like this series and thought of sending a link to some people that might benefit by seeing it. I went to the Crash Course channel page but I could not find a playlist or other method of aggregation that I could refer them to. Will there be such a thing?