Comments by "Alphabet Inc." (@official_alphabet_inc) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1. 99.9% of the people you're talking about are dead, and the rest is lying in some bed waiting to die...
    1
  2.  @MementoMori-m  97.4% now
    1
  3.  @MementoMori-m  Oh, okay, I misunderstood. But does it really matter being liked by a guy that thinks German people under 88 owe the world something for WWII? If yes, then I'd like to point out his regime killed way more people under Stalin. If no, then phuque him :)
    1
  4. Exactly what were you thinking he misjudged? This was a very unbiased, geopolitical analysis of the situation back then imo. Unlike all that bullshit I was fed by western news on this subject... Well, Vice, I mean. They were the only ones that cared to follow this conflict for longer than two weeks following the revolution, insurrection, coup or whatever different people like to call it. Sadly, Vice was unable to look at the conflict from a broader perspective.
    1
  5. I've been a subscriber for many years now, and I greatly appreciate your content, but today, for the first time, I have some critique for you: revealing your sources. I was going slightly comment on how the graph at 9:20 was presented and interpreted when I questioned whether this was your presentation/interpretation, or if it was the source's. A bit shocked by the fact that you didn't provide the source yourself, I had to find it myself through googling the title. Thus, I realised that you're just presenting the source's graph and findings, so enough about that. After this, I was left with a bit bitter taste regarding your content, because I've always looked at your content as professional, fact-based and striving to present as unbiased content as possible. But... Not presenting sources in a clear and precise way is one of the most essential parts of transparency, and is in my opinion a hallmark of professionality. I know this is sadly the norm both in YouTube and conveying news in general, but that's no excuse when it's so simple. You've already done the most time-consuming part of providing sources: finding them. My suggestion for you is that you in future videos: 1. Research phase: keep the link to a given source that you might use in the final video 2. Draft phase: attach the link to your manuscript where the source is going to be used 3. Production / video editing phase: add "[x]" somewhere in the video to convey to the watcher that what you're currently saying or what's being presented visually on screen is from a third-party source (where the "x" indicates what number source your referring to, in a chronological order) 4. Publication phase: Add a chronological list of sources used in the video description. I suggest using Google Docs or similar, so instead of bulking up your video description with to much text (like this post lol), you can share a spreadsheet with those who'd be interested. Bonus tip: the last point about bulky video descriptions can also be used on your other links. Like those e-thots you promote their social media and OF etc., you can write something like "For my other social media links, to support me, or watch Caspian Report in other languages, visit [link]" Anyways, I'm not expecting links to every single source used, like a professor who's going to grade your work (like a picture of a map or a video clip being used). But if your serious about this channel, which I presume you are, then you should be transparent about every claim that doesn't originate from you or your team directly. Sorry for the wall of text, but this is important. Thanks again for informative and important content you provide.
    1
  6. Has the part of Vikings discovering North America actually been proven? The Vinland-map has been confirmed to be a fake, and I thought that was the only factual evidence for this theory.
    1