Youtube comments of (@TLDRnewsEU).

  1. 2400
  2. 1600
  3. 1500
  4. 1200
  5. 1200
  6. 1100
  7. 1100
  8. 1000
  9. 997
  10. THREE THINGS TO NOTE: 1. Yesterday evening, after this video was created, it was revealed that Ukraine had re-captured Lyman. Reports tell us that Ukrainian forced closed in on the city from the West and South forcing a Russian surrender. The rest of the video is still accurate, so we thought it was definitely still worth releasing, just know that the Ukrainians were successful in the effort in Lyman discussed in this video. You can read more here, as well as on basically any other news site: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html 2. Sorry about the audio and video quality. As you can see I recorded it at home, just becasuse of technical issues in the studio & because I was working from home most of the week with a pretty gross cold (which I wanted to recover from & avoid spreading to the rest of the team). I hope you can ignore the tech issues and just enjoy the information and graphics as normal! 3. The reason I wanted to recover so badly was because right now, as this video is released, I'm running the London Marathon. I'm still not fully better (as I write this on Saturday evening) but I am feeling better. I'm still going ahead partly because I've trained for too long not to, but also because I'm running for SRUK a charity who raise money to support people with scleroderma, a rare auto-immune disease my mum suffers from. The disease has no cure and in some instances is fatal (the 10 year survival rate is between 50 and 80%). SRUK are raising money to not only help find a cure, but also support those living with the condition - and both of those things are vital as there's no government funding going toward finding a cure in the UK. If you'd like to donate I'd really appreciate it and you can do so here: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tldrjack Thanks, and sorry for any disruption in this video - Jack
    987
  11. 969
  12. It’s an entirely fair point. The titles and thumbnails are a balancing act for every video, as we want people to click the videos and learn about important topics but we also don’t want to mislead anyone. I would slightly push back on the specific term clickbait though. To me at least, the bad kind of clickbait is when the title promises something which is either untrue or not delivered on in the video. I think at worst our more ‘clickbait’ titles may over dramatise the issue slightly (although in a way we still seem to be respectful) but the videos themselves always still deliver on the core promise of the video, as we’ve always done. I do get why people want a clean, accurate titles on our videos. I think the whole TLDR team would prefer that too. For us though, we really think the topics were covering are important, so if we’re going to reach the 18-30 demographic we’re aiming for, we have to play the same game to get their attention as everyone’s else on YouTube is. We’re not just competing with news, we’re trying to teach people politics vs far more fun content they could watch on here. Again, I do understand the desire for a more pure news experience, and I really do hope that people are able to understand that our actual videos haven’t changed at all. It feels very sad to me that someone’s desire to not click on a more hyperbolic thumbnail would put them off watching the full 8 minute video - that feels like a really disappointing situation for everyone - Jack
    961
  13. 938
  14. 880
  15. 853
  16. I know we addressed this in the video, but there's still a bunch of people talking about it, so on the HAI thing. We are absolutely aware that HAI released a video on this exact topic only a couple of days ago. We started work on this video on August 20th and the script was finalised on August 26th, so in no way we did we steal anything from HAI - the script was locked down way before that video came out. Regardless we contemplated not putting this video out, as we were concerned that people would be done with this topic having seen the HAI video. However, we decided that ultimately out video takes a very difficult approach from Sam's. I don't mean this as an insult to the HAI video at all (I have been subscribed for a very long time and watch most HAI and Wendover video) but those videos tend to only lightly touch on each topic. They give you a brief overview of a topic in a few minutes to give you a starting point if you want to research further. Our video is that further research. As a politics channel and with a political audience we can take 10 minutes to explain the complexities of Belgium's political system which just isn't possible for HAI. Ultimately I hope you enjoy both videos and as much as we were sad to see our topic taken days before posting, that's just how the game goes. HAI clearly had no idea our video was coming and we had no clue they were doing there's. Though if HAI start explaining trade deals or doing Brexit videos we might have to start writing a dis track...
    818
  17. 814
  18. CORRECTIONS: At 6:44, we say that 'for most of the war, Russia refrained from striking civilian targets'. Of course, this isn't true: Russia has been striking civilian targets since the war began in February of last year, as we covered on this channel. What we were trying to communicate is that there was a significant uptick in Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure (bridges, railways and the electricity grid) in October of last year, when Russia changed its command after the successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kherson and Kharkiv, and this latest attack on Nova Kakhovka suggests a further escalation in this direction. Nonetheless, this is an error on our part, and we can only apologise - it's a sloppy mistake. At 2:30, we say that Kherson city is 'occupied by the Ukrainians'. Again, this is just a mistake - we meant to say 'controlled', but apparently got a little confused having used the word 'occupied' in the context of its Russian occupation so many times previously. At the end of this video, and in other videos, where we refer to Russia's "Special Military Operation" we intend the reference to be tongue in cheek. I think previously that's been pretty well understood, but we totally see that based on tone it's possible to misinterpret our intention here. To avoid any confusion going forward, we plan to refrain from using the phrase (even mockingly) Finally, some commenters have pushed back against our suggestion that the Russians were behind this, and likened it to the NordStream pipeline attacks last year. We're not going to go into this in too much detail, but the two cases are clearly not analogous for a whole load of reasons (as we explain here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBArIp0Gy7g ) These are sloppy errors that we shouldn't be making, and we can only apologise - hopefully you still found the video informative
    741
  19. 708
  20. 698
  21. 692
  22. 690
  23. 677
  24. 673
  25. 671
  26. 640
  27. 602
  28. 583
  29. 573
  30. 565
  31. 555
  32. 534
  33. 523
  34. 507
  35. 488
  36. 475
  37. 475
  38. 463
  39. 462
  40. 448
  41. 422
  42. 420
  43. 413
  44. 400
  45. 398
  46. 397
  47. 395
  48. 382
  49. 379
  50. 370
  51. 333
  52. 327
  53. 307
  54. 295
  55. 277
  56. 261
  57. 256
  58. 223
  59. 221
  60. 221
  61. 212
  62. 203
  63. 191
  64. 190
  65. 188
  66. 185
  67. 184
  68. 182
  69. 173
  70. 163
  71. 161
  72. 160
  73. 157
  74. 150
  75. 150
  76. 148
  77. Hey! A few people are commenting on what we said in the video about Moldova's official language so I wanted to quickly clarify. Moldovans and Romanians do speak the same language - Romanian. So why did we call it Moldovan in the video? Well that's because the term "Moldovan" not Romanian (the more common name for the language) was used in the 1994 Constitution which was most relevant at the time we're referring to. Now this is confusing, why would you not use the more common name for the language if you're actually speaking Romanian? Who knows! Probably patriotism? Saying we declare ourselves independent (and have this lovely new constitution) and by the way we're speaking Moldovan in Moldova sounds a lot more exciting than, we're independent but we're using our neighbours language. Now to be fair, in the 1991 Declaration of Independence they did use the word "Romanian" not Moldovan... oh we do love inconsistency. Also, while most do call the language Romanian (especially internationally), there are many who refer to it as Moldovan, with surveys showing a pretty serious split between rural and urban Moldovans. Did I make that clearer or did I just say Moldovan too many times? I'm not sure. All I know is that technically both terms are correct, although Romanian is the more commonly accepted term, just that in the specific instance we were referring to "Moldovan" is slightly more correct as that's the term the declaration actually used. TLDR; I understand the confusion but we did choose that term for a reason BTW, I've spent a few months living in Moldova (both in Chișinău and actually pretty near the Transnistria border) so I have the upmost respect and love for the country - so I'm sorry if we've confused of offended anyone - Jack
    131
  78. 124
  79. 104
  80. 97
  81. 85
  82. 72
  83. 69
  84. 57
  85. 57
  86. 56
  87. 53
  88. 51
  89. 49
  90. 49
  91. 49
  92. 46
  93. 46
  94. 45
  95. 43
  96. 43
  97. 39
  98. 38
  99. 33
  100. 30
  101. 28
  102. 27
  103. 26
  104. 25
  105. 25
  106. 25
  107. 24
  108. 23
  109. 20
  110. 18
  111. 17
  112. 16
  113. 15
  114. 15
  115. 14
  116. 13
  117. 13
  118. 13
  119. 12
  120. 12
  121. 12
  122. 12
  123. 12
  124. 11
  125. 11
  126. 11
  127. 11
  128. 11
  129. 11
  130. 11
  131. 10
  132. 10
  133. 10
  134. 9
  135. 8
  136. 8
  137. 8
  138. 7
  139. 7
  140. 7
  141. 7
  142. 6
  143. 6
  144. 6
  145. 6
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 5
  151. 5
  152. 5
  153. 5
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1