It's been 6 years, but I would like to summarize it for you and maybe others. 1-) Civil society cannot solve all problems, state support is required, but this does not mean that civil society is unimportant. 2-) Civil society is not only within organizations, it is bigger than that. 3-) Civil society is not just about doing something for others, sometimes we do it for ourselves. 4-) There is a non-inclusive market language in non-governmental organizations in Turkey (strategic priority, resource, project, sustainability, etc.) 5-)Education is not enough for civil society and its awareness, needs do not have priority over other needs. Everyone can work in the field they want, there is no hierarchy between these fields. 6-) We need to understand the differences between facts and assumptions. because if we consider the work of civil society in the example of Turkey over poor villages, this will not be true. Because Turkey is not in the situation where those poor villages are now, it has developed in this context. 7-) It may not be absolutely correct to assume that the desire for bigger faster is better for civil society. I would like to add that the conservative political and ideological understanding of Turkey, which was more prevalent in the years the video was shot and still has an impact, was denounced in those years with the idea that concepts such as "civil society" were for the purposes of criticizing the government, meddling in its business, and making it look bad. Turkey is a country where the culture of reconciliation and criticism has unfortunately not developed. Even if the government made a mistake, the people were just advocating it without researching it ,maybe because the thought that the ruler in the Islamic understanding cannot be judged still has an effect on the people. Or many other things like that. (It is annoying to live in conditions where the effects of this understanding continue :( )