![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Nobody wants to watch a video to participate in a text-based debate
Why not? What’s wrong with using the most presentable, easy to digest content? If I needed to present a graph to support my claim would you rather have me describe that information in text rather than link to a picture or a video that shows that graph?
Also, there’s no need to watch the videos in length either to get what I’m presenting either. They describe and support proof to my 2 claims,
- Investigator should be independent
- There should be no conflict of interest in where money is coming from to pay the investigator
I presented 3 videos in a few comments but didn’t want to spam it to every reply. But here they are for your convenience.
- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4
- https://youtu.be/CTxt96DwaFk?si=0KHoVdFElOoH0-Za
- https://youtu.be/C_0XEIFGK5o?si=Yc_hONVBDGcEV_t6
If you were thinking that we were having a debate, why don’t you stick to debate rules and present a rebuttal to my claims?
There won’t be a conflict of interest because everyone is paying. So it’s not in the best interest of the other member countries if a corrupt country is getting a favourable report. Because their member fees are being wasted. So there’s checks and balances inherently built into the system.
So in a hypothetical similar scenario this report requested by LMG is funded by GN, Hardware Unboxed, The Verge and all the other YouTubers including the LMG. So there’s incentive to find faults in LMG within the group funding the report.