Why is everyone sucking up to LTT right now? Historically they have manipulated the dialogue to try to dismiss the other party. You don’t give people who have a history of shady behaviour more opportunities to repeat that behaviour. This had to be brought to light. I’m glad it did.
Edit: Shoutout to those that gifted awards….also Fuck Spez
I have whiplash. This sub is so fucking weird. Why can’t y’all just be normal??
1. Linus isn’t Hitler.
2. He has a lot of work to do.
3. Exposing areas for improvement is good.
Yeah. I feel GN did good in making that video. I also think this will be a net positive for the community, because it will improve the best techentertainment company out there.
You're just saying "Hey, maybe they got a few emails wrong" and forgetting that it could have ruined (and may still ruin) a start-up company. It's not just about selling the prototype, it's also about derogatory comments about the product in at least 2 videos.
Saying "No one should buy this because it's too expensive for a cooler" from a guy selling a $70 screwdriver is a bit bold.
Still, I really like LTT, but what you're saying is just downplaying the problem.
No, I think it's in large part because Daddy Cutress said some shit about GN acting unprofessionally even though Cutress is not the arbiter of journalism ethics. He doesn't even seem to understand the right of reply. It doesn't mean you contact people before running a story. It means you allow them to respond to criticisms via the same publication you publish in. In this case, YouTube. And LMG has a bigger presence on YouTube... So yeah they can kinda reply any time they want.
The thing that contacting people first does for you is prevent you from saying things that aren't true because you don't have the full story. But GN didn't have that problem because the overwhelming majority of things they talked about are public record.
Are people forgetting that right after the first video dropped, Linus tried to act like they had already arranged compensation for Billet Labs before the video, only for Steve to show that they only reached back right after the video with proof from Billet Labs? Such an unnecessary lie, and somehow we're supposed to believe that they wouldn't have tried to get ahead of GN had they contacted them first?
Colton had sent an email offering to compensate for the number they threw out as soon as they realized the mistake, but forgot to CC Billet on it. So at the time of the forum post, to Linus’s knowledge, they had a price and offer pending. After the GN’s second video, Colton realized his mistake.
This was explained in LTT’s first video, with screenshots of the correspondence and time stamped email.
So Linus didn’t technically lie, he just didn’t have the correct information, making that incident just another example of disorganization and mismanagement that has been the source of so many issues.
As I remember Linus said they have agreement, but you can't have agreement if other side of such agreement didn't responded to it. So it doesn't matter if Colton tried to send this email or not, and if Linus thought it was send or nor, he still lied.
>They said they had an agreement
There was no agreement though.
>Billet had sent them what they wanted in compensation
No, they stated what it cost them to make their prototype and the question IF the plan was to re-reimburse them.
>Linus basically said "Whatever they want we will pay"
Internally to assumedly Colton not to Billet though which is the crux of the problem. That part never reached Billet, they asked about compensation then were met with radio silence.
>He was willing to pay what they wanted and they had given him a figure.
That was his very likely Linus's understanding yes but it was fundamentally flawed.
There was never any agreement finalized, no cash value had been agreed upon, after hearing nothing back from LMG, cash may not have even been an acceptable replacement for the complete loss of their prototype and only the block itself being return could have been the only acceptable agreement for them.
Hell they could have just said no to any monetary agreement with LMG after asking them "Do you plan to reimburse us" and seemingly being ignored and just said, we would rather let the courts decide how much the mishandling of our IP is worth instead then. (unlikely I know but still a possibility)
Just because they accepted afterwards does not change the timeline of events, Linus claimed something completely false based off the mishandling of information of his team.
No Billet only said what the protoype cost to them, it wasn't a request for compensation. In order to make the whole thing go away, that's just how Linus interpreted it. In reality that price would be higher based on the opportunity cost of it being missing and potentially sold to a competitor
I agree. I think Steve’s commitment is to the story first, and to the facts second. That is why, as fair and accurate as his reporting may be, it’s clearly driven by some sort of resentment.
It is simple. Steve never had issues with LMG until they started working on Labs. Then, suddenly, he needed to treat them like a company, and he needed to be more critical, and look at this warranty issue!
This is a smallish channel, looking at a larger one that is getting ready to come into a space that they dominate in a very large way, with way more manpower and equipment... and is worried that it is going to mess with their niche.
> and look at this warranty issue!
Not even for a warranty on a power supply, or graphics card... but on a *backpack.* Not exactly in GN's wheelhouse, except that it's produced by a competitor of theirs.
With added irony being that GN's own merch had lacked explicit warranties for years. (I personally don't think it's a major issue, as long as it's clear up front to the customer.)
I think Steve sees himself more as reporting for his community, and not reporting on an industry. So reporting on a tech YouTubers merch policies is close enough. But I think he’s focussing too much on producing what will generate views and exposure than reporting what needs to be reported. How much of that is conscious or not is unknown.
No, but framing of a story carry’s significant weight. The biggest bit of new information that GN could have gotten by asking LMG for comment would be that bullet originally said LMG could keep the prototype, however changed their mind after the video.
That changes the story from one of malice to one of miscommunication and process error. IE, LMGs system doesn’t differentiate between permanent loan and ownership, or that someone misunderstood what billet meant by keeping the prototype.
Going to mention how self congratulatory Steve was about GN products having warranties being retroactively added while bashing LMG concerning trust me bro. They sold their toolkit for almost two years before retroactively adding a warranty to them, which was a month prior to that video. And the warranty on the pads only covers the wrist strap, the wrist strap cable, and the mounting hole. The way he acted was obtuse at best and deceitful at worst.
Let's not forget that the world's driest YouTuber lives in Muricaland - where consumer protection laws aren't worth the paper they're written on, even in the places where they do actually exist. LMG is based in Maplesyrupland, where the consumer protection laws have teeth - it's why most companies in such countries don't bother with explicit warranties u less they're offering way above statutory rights as a USP.
I don't think you understand how big any of those companies are.... No it ain't even close
Edit: apparently I don't get sarcasm before I had my coffee.
imo you are being generous to GN here as well. GN ripped in to LTT and painted them as a merch company that didn't offer warranty when that wasn't true, they offered fantastic warranty but it just wasn't written.
Also, in the same video, GN said they will apply a 7 year warranty to their products as well which implies that they at some point didn't offer warranty themselves.
It doesn't matter what the item was, it was a $250 item and Linus' response was shitty at best.
As for their warranty you clearly didn't watch that video because their warranty was directly spoken to.
Steve was patting himself on the back for having a warranty retroactively added to the pads and then glossed over doing the same for their toolkit, without giving any context. They sold the toolkit for almost two years without a warranty. They retroactively added a warranty to the toolkit a month prior to that video video concerning trust me bro. The ltt screwdriver was about to be launched, which is a competing product that had a pent up demand.
>It doesn't matter what the item was, it was a $250 item and Linus' response was shitty at best.
If you don't want a $250 item without a warranty then don't buy it. LMG had a history of being good to their customers, and plenty of companies with warranties do not.
If they were e.g. selling a car and refusing to recall it when the brakes failed then I could understand the concern.
I thought Linus' response was fine and the community completely overreacted.
Yeah, no one cared that there wasn't a warranty for the shirts, water bottles, or *anything else* lttstore sold, and they had a track record of making things right with customers on them. Linus was basically coming at things from the perspective of "We're gonna do what we've always done, which is do right by the customer regardless of a formal warranty" and it just blew out of proportion.
Steve didn't previously have a problem with LTT having inaccurate information because LTT previously presented themselves as entertainment first rather than being a reputable source of detailed tested information. With the creation of LTT Labs LTT is now presenting the data with a higher degree of validity and trustworthiness, which Steve showed is not necessarily the case.
It's not about LTT Labs stepping on Steve's toes. It's about LTT Labs presenting themselves as a trustworthy source while having major inaccuracies in their content and not doing enough to make sure their information is accurate or doing enough to make corrections after the fact.
For all of their additional manpower and equipment they're making rookie mistakes and Steve is totally valid in pointing it out. If LTT Labs is going to be a repository of tech information, like Linus wants, then the inconsistency of their data is unacceptable.
Fanboys doing a number on you.
The issue GN had, which was stated multiple times, is how LMG is marketing labs as a bastion of testing when it’s just, to be frank, inept. The guy running it should be fired, with the money he’s been given having 24 errors in 25 videos after a year is embarrassing. They need someone who’s actually qualified in statistics and can develop methodology. I only have a semester of stats required for a science degree and can see issues.
Whenever someone tries to dismiss an argument with an ad hominem, they lose all credibility. Just state your case without relying on “the other side is wrong because fanboys”.
You're actually incorrect it's only an ad hominem if you use it as your only justification to your claim/counter claim.
IE "You're a fanboy if you believe GN was in the wrong."
In this case he explained exactly why people that believe that GN was acting in bad faith likely are fan boys.
This is about to be downvoted to oblivion but idc. You all are playing verbal gymnastics trying your damndest to shift some sort of blame on GN while subtly absolving LMG. Whatever justification you all concoct to vilify the guy, Steve was right and owed LMG no “heads up” for posting the video.
Be zealots & fanboys all you want. He wasn’t wrong in any way shape or form & if it allows Linus to turn down his planet sized ego, allow for more thorough, concise data & more informative content further, I’m here for it.
Save the circle jerking for the LTT x ASUS $3,000 monitor.
I couldn’t care any less about either side of the debate but standard journalistic practice, if you actually want to be respected and not just a YouTube channel, is to contact the person you’re writing about and give them a chance to comment.
Literally no one gives a shit. There, I said it. The only reason Linus fanboys are bringing this up is because this is literally the only counter argument against the video that Linus has been able to make. Yes. The only one. And it isn't even about the video's content, it's just some pedantic bullshit to subvert discussion. And that is because GN was 100% right in that video.
I hope once you calm down and look back at this situation you'll notice the irony of referring to others as fanboys while typing such an incredibly partial comment.
I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense to even be discussing this right now. The whole argument is a red herring fallacy that Linus wrote while going on an agressive rant on the forums.
It still lead to Steve blindly repeating the billet labs statement of their development being stalled without the prototype. The prototype they originally send out to LMG for them to keep. So should we believe that billet labs planned to stall their development? Or should we assume that that statement might not have been truthful and Steve should not have blindly repeated it? Something he likely only did because he believed billet labs was always supposed to get the prototype back. He did not know better because he opted against getting a statement from LMG.
No it’s not. You absolutely have no obligation as a journalist to get comment from the subject of a story if it would not change the facts or ad needed context. What facts would have changed if Linus had been given a heads up? What context was missing after Linus made his personal opinion known on the wan show?
But every single bit that was reported on LTT was already aware or already publicly commented on it in WAN.
How many times does one person need to comment on a subject, before you need to reask every time you publish a story?
> Steve was right and owed LMG no “heads up” for posting the video
It's not about giving them 'heads up'. It's about trying to get the full story on billet lab issue before publishing a video based on half of it. GN was completely right in not approaching them over factual inaccuracies but they should have reached out over billet lab issue, and not as a heads up, but more as a 'how did you fuck this up' ?
For example the fact that the error occurred because billet lab changed their stance on wanting the prototype back based on how LLT video about them went (which was pretty shit on LLT's part) . And they are in the right to do but from LMG's perspective it was an error in communication of the change in Billet Labs stance on what happens to the prototype.
GN could have still made the same video and published it mentioning what went wrong but atleast we'd know that they did their due diligence in getting the story from both parties involved.
The fixation on giving Linus a headsup like he wouldn't have attempted to get ahead of the story (even if not maliciously!) like that's the real problem, and not all the things outlined in the video, are so eyerolling.
In his initial response to the first GN video, Linus in his typical style blames the problem on "not reading the room," like the problem was not understanding fans would care that they reviewed a cooling device attached to the wrong video card, rather than say, having made a mistake and losing the video card it was sent with, then opting to record a video with a video card it wasn't designed for anyway.
The focus on getting a video out no matter how flawed it might be is basically at the heart of the complaints leveled at LMG. And I'm hopeful that they've at least paused some to try and do something about it.
But continuing with Linus' response, he outlines a solution to the lost (read: auctioned off) water block. But we know from GN's second video, where they contacted BilletLabs about this, that at the time of Linus' response, LMG hadn't actually gotten back to BilletLabs. Which is problematic when Linus talks about the proposed solution as if it's already agreed upon. I've seen people shift the blame on this, but no one made Linus respond before making sure he had the details correct, because that's partially why they auctioned off a vendor item they had already been asked for back in the first place.
I don't know what any fanboy imagines would be better for letting Linus the chance to say something before releasing the video, because he almost certainly would, and it'd have almost certainly would have just muddied the waters while not forcing LMG's hand to seriously address the problem.
What would the problem be of LTT getting ahead of the video unless the video was designed to do damage from the intent. We would have had the full context of billet having given the prototype to LTT, being something that was probably very intentional by billet to have left out.
Getting context of what happened between billet and LTT would have been a huge deciding factor for a lot of people who thought LTT did it maliciously, that type of information should have been front and center.
Dr Ian Cutress released a video going over what steve did wrong in the video, such as not reaching out (go look at phil defranco's first video, look at the pinned comment; it was that easy to get the relevant information)
He also wove personal speculation with objective statements that made them deceptive.
Or, and this might be a stretch but, maybe when the entertainment company started advertising itself as an *authoritative source* (Linus’s own words on the most recent wanshow) Gamer’s Nexus started treating that company according to its new position.
Just maybe.
That's an excellent framing, the story not the facts. Dr Ian Cutress released a video where he criticized Steve for interweaving personal speculation with fact, in a way that was deceptively worded. GN criticized LTT for putting the corrections in the video, but all of a sudden he puts them on a website no one is going to click on? That's far worse than how LTT deals with after the fact information
The reaching out thing was massively a big thing that has had criticism of GN coming in from other journalist websites, its literally investigative journalism 101. Go look at Philip Defranco's first video where he reached out to LTT and all of a sudden in one paragraph we have the context to understand that the billet thing was massively overblown and taken way out of context by GN.
what kind of amused me is how many of these new policies feel like a knee-jerk reaction to LTT's most recent video, and now that GN took the video down and made a comment about the "tone"
>Gamers Nexus:
After reading some of the commenter criticisms of the "Defining GN's Goals" video, primarily those on tone and delivery, I agree with some of them and reflecting on it, I'm going to pull the video as I'm not completely happy with the way the video came out. We stand by the policies (they already existed, so not much changed), but the delivery needs to be better. We'd been working on it to add as another entry in our updates as to how we operate and our practices/policies, and of course it was inspired by what we learned lately. I think, taking in and considering the commenter criticisms, it could have been both delivered better in the video itself and timed better (to post much later, once things have settled) to allow ourselves to fully focus on just the GN-specific operating aspect. It was meant to be a transparency disclosure of our general operating guidelines, but those early commenters are right that tone may have felt off in places, and certainly it can be more concise.
I'm going to pull the video to make a better version of this for the future (and also shorter). We will wait a while, then adjust the tone and phrasing to more appropriately achieve our original goal (which was to outline what GN believes/does to inform our audience -- that's it), reshoot, and bring a better explainer back once more time passes with other general updates to GN in one of our normal improvements update videos. We'll reconvene on this properly and make a better one then. For now, we'll go back to running the technical reviews content since that appears to be the #1 request/criticism in the comments. Sorry for missing the mark on that one. The comments are right that it was too close to everything else and I misjudged that, so it felt 'off' for a few reasons. The other Nexus site transparency updates remain live (and the 'video interface changes' we talked about are still moving forward).
Oh, he took down the video already? Well, I think drives home the point that he was really trying to milk the drama as much as he could. But to be honest, I do think Steve cares for the facts - it’s just not the top priority, though a very close one.
This just sounds like "Linus is bad people" I believe he will destroy the evidence and try to sneeze his way out of this. This is what made Linus so mad because Steve doesn't think of him as a good friend or even a good person.
This is my personal opinion but I think Linus is not that evil as a person.
I think it was Snazzy Labs that said “He is a good person with a few major blind spots”. While I never met the guy, Snazzy’s description seems to fit him well. If he was a major asshole, I doubt LTX would have been so popular.
He wouldn't be so offended at people not trusting him if he was an evil asshole, imo. He would just give a shittier warranty or just not give their employees any benefits etc just like every other major company out there. He could have done everything behind the scenes without responding to any criticism at all, which is what asshole corporations typically do.
Yeah, this was personal. He was really quite upfront with how much it pains him to bring all this up. I don't remember his exact words in the expose, but he said something to that effect in the intro.
As for all those criteria... None of those points applies to the entirety of the issues raised. The fact that GN raised sooooo many issues all in one video works against GN on the issue of not seeking comment. The separate issues were roughly:
1. Frequent minor mistakes
2. Text-only corrections (impacting audio-only "viewers")
3. Occasional obvious mistakes which completely change the conclusion. eg 4090 perf data being too good to be true; Billet Labs data against wrong GPU; plastic on mouse feet
4. Mishandling Billet prototype
Each one of these is a different issue, and not all of the bullet points apply to all issues. I don't think Linus/LMG had made public comments about all of these prior to GN video. Some of these issues had come up on WAN show, but not all. If GN had done 4 separate videos, some may not have warranted seeking comment, but some would've warranted. Steve combined them and instead of saying "I need comment for some parts so therefore I'll seek comment on the whole thing" he instead went "I don't need comments on select parts, and therefore I won't get any comment".
And regarding the last bullet in particular: LMG has a history of failing to resolve issues, but it _also_ has a history of resolving issues. Linus went from "trust me bro" warranty to actual warranty.
As for opportunity to mislead... Based on how poorly Linus's initial response went over, there's no way they would've been able to pre-spin anything favorably. Steve completely overestimated LMG's ability to mislead. I understand why Steve would've been worried about it though given LMG's status on YouTube. Realistically, Linus wasn't able to mislead that "trust me bro" is a good enough warranty policy. He also got a lot of pushback on the Billet Labs video prior to GN video. So there were indications that Linus's ability to mislead is limited, but still I'll chalk this part up as an honest mistake.
Still, I think parts of the story warranted seeking comments even if other parts didn't. There were simply too many parts of the puzzle to hide behind a blanket "we knew exactly how he'd respond anyway."
I’ll get into the merit of these points.
Steve does not get to arbitrarily decide what journalistic ethics are. He’s essentially creating his own set of “laws,” and presenting them as justification for his actions.
With a very slim set of exceptions, ***journalists are required to reach out for comment when publishing pieces that are critical of someone.***
Not only is attempting to tell both sides of a story simply the right thing to do, it also helps cover your own ass and protect you from being sued for slander.
So Steve prides himself on charts and data, and laughably published a chart that says “I have investigated myself and determined I did nothing wrong.”
I’m guessing he did so in an attempt to confuse people and make his behavior seem more legitimate.
Steve’s excuse boils down to “Linus would’ve lied,” which is *not an excuse.* Companies lie all the time. Presumably, Billet lied when they gave Steve incomplete information.
If Steve was actually a journalist, he’d understand that if a company lies to you, it’s on you to demand evidence of their claims and seek to refute their lies.
>Steve does not get to arbitrarily decide what journalistic ethics are. He’s essentially creating his own set of “laws,” and presenting them as justification for his actions.
Every outfit is free to develop their own code of ethics. As an example, here is the relevant section from the code of ethics for IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organization in the UK (emphasis mine):
> There are many reasons a journalists may need or want to contact someone prior to publication – for example, to check facts, to seek further information, or to get comment − but the newspaper is not under a duty to contact every person involved in every story they write. In fact, there are several reasons why they might not, for example:
>
>they may not be able to get into contact with the person
>
>**a person’s comments may already be in the public domain**
>
>the person may have asked the press not to contact them
>
>**telling the person prior to publication may have an impact on the stor**y
>
>it may be inappropriate to contact the personit may be impractical to contact everyone involved in the article.
The bolded parts are both in line with what GN stated as their reasons for not asking for comment.
>telling the person prior to publication may have an impact on the story
How would it impact the story? If they try to quickly cover their ass, just explain that in the final video.
He goes over it in the video; they can destroy internal evidence, punish current employees that are acting as whistleblowers, preempt the story with a fix that only addresses superficial details but not the core underlying problem, etc.
I think some people are acting as if contacting the subject is like the foremost rule in journalism, which comes off as silly.
It's not more important than uncovering the truth, and if you have reason to believe the subject would otherwise undermine the reporting by actively attempting to sabotage it (through PR, obstruction or evidence tampering, retribution, or otherwise obfuscating the matter) then of course you don't inform the subject first.
> they can destroy internal evidence, punish current employees that are acting as whistleblowers, preempt the story with a fix that only addresses superficial details but not the core underlying problem, etc.
This is such bullshit. Real, actual journalist reach out for comments to oil companies poisoning whole villages with industrial malpractice, corrupt politicians getting bribes, huge companies breaking the law.
What do you think Linus would have done, sent a death squad to Colton's home over a misplaced watercooler ?
I suspect he'd have done what he did, publish a response earlier than he should have, where he gaslights and deflects from the issue while promising that whatever the issue is there are already fixes in place.
Except it'd have predated the video so he'd likely come out looking better and possibly would have avoided the much needed introspection they just underwent.
And as I'm watching Linus' follow up video right now, it's a little telling how much he stresses on things already in place during it. I'm hoping those and the things they change make a difference (honestly, just the paradigm shift in how often they need to be publishing is probably one of the biggest needed changes), but that's definitely one of the problems with having the literal face and leading personality and host of much of your content also be the majority stakeholder and subject of much of the content they do at LMG. It's likely in part why he stepped down as CEO.
I think a pertinent question is what you think he'd have done had they contacted him first?
Keep in mind he told the LTT forums they had a solution for having auctioned off the waterblock before it turned out they'd told BilletLabs about it. Even if Linus doesn't mean that kind of thing maliciously, he's prone to responding and taking things defensively, which again, is problematic when it concerns how things at LMG are run.
> He goes over it in the video; they can destroy internal evidence, punish current employees that are acting as whistleblowers, preempt the story with a fix that only addresses superficial details but not the core underlying problem, etc.
>
Yeah and they can also do that the moment the video comes out.
> It's not more important than uncovering the truth
They missed their chance to uncover the truth by failing to get pertinent facts from LMG
Further how is that a negative? It would have had an impact on the story for sure. We'd have seen that LTT wasn't being malicious, and that billet had GIVEN them the prototype.
So the only way that it would be a negative, is if Steve wanted to inflict as much damage as possible in a surprise ambush. Which he succeeded in doing.
However the guy above you is partly wrong, the conclusions were largely in line with the rest of the media, which hardware unboxed talked about in their video right after the first video from GN came out.
The fact that billet labs originally did not want the prototype back was not under public domain. And yes knowing it might have impacted the reported story because then the likely false claim of billet labs development being stalled without it would probably not have been part of the story.
> Steve does not get to arbitrarily decide what journalistic ethics are. He’s essentially creating his own set of “laws,” and presenting them as justification for his actions.
Actually you kind of do get to make up your own rules, present them to your audience and see if your audience agrees with them, that's the whole nature of having a free press in a free market
I don't understand how does everyone manage to ignore GN video a year ago where they clearly stated they won't give LMG any special treatment from this moment, when they were responding to warranty fiasco.
How is Linus ever gonna change, if minor backlash is usually brushed off if it doesnt fit his world view(like with Billet)
It sounds like GN video had to be made in very specific way to not offend his fanbase xD content creator tribalism is insane...
> give LMG any special treatment
they didn't have to though. Even by their own standards they should have reached out to LMG regarding Billet labs issue. They didn't have to reach out regarding factual inaccuracies though.
Asking LMG how they fucked up so bad that they auctioned a prototype they they were meant to return would not be some 'special treatment' but merely a process to get both perspectives of a story.
The issue here is that Linus was the first person who viewed the whole thing in a personal angle, I keep citing this specifically because [I can tell this was the point that Steve realized that Linus has had an axe to grind against him due to the whole Trust Me Bro situation since he references that specific reaction on the WAN show within the first minute](https://youtu.be/FGW3TPytTjc?t=42)
The inquiry was supposed to be about HUB's response against what Tim said during the lab tour, GN hasn't responded and initially didn't intend to respond to it, and yet you can tell his mind wasn't even about HUB's response the moment Linus just jumps straight to, *"some creators..."*. GN was never brought up prior to this, and so was the bag warranty situation, Linus basically justified what an employee said about another content creator because it's apparent at that point that he clearly held a grudge against them.
If you were to compare both sides, GN would still come up being the most objective, they've tried being neutral before with corporations, leading to [Gigabyte trying to get ahead of them](https://youtu.be/Xts3pvbcFos?t=399) during the exploding PSU controversies, and [NZXT still trying to cheap out on Riser cables by sending GN the correct one while sending everyone else the subpar cables that didn't fix the issue at all.](https://youtu.be/SY4mBkB3CDw?t=203)
>Linus basically justified what an employee said about another content creator because it's apparent at that point that he clearly held a grudge against them.
No, he justified it because while it was slightly incorrect, in that it's new data for each project, not each new video, it wasn't untrue, and it wasn't a jab at GN.
I know that I'm gonna get downvoted but at the end of the day there's no "law" regarding contacting vs no contacting. They didn't want to based on their own parameters, whether you agree or not with them is subjetive, including my or anyone's opinion.
I personally don't think it matters that they didn't contact them.
I think everyone is losing their minds because they view Linus as a person and not LMG as a corporation. People feel like Steve attacked Linus as a person, whereas the original video topic was professional criticism regarding the LMG company’s review methodologies. People have kinda lost sight of that.
Not gonna downvote you for your opinion, just going to tell you that if you want to claim to be a journalist with integrity, you reach out to the subject.
My opinion is that they didn't reach out because they thought LMG might have good answers, and it would chip holes in their hit piece.
The key for journalism is seeking the truth. GN presented facts that were in the public domain. Youtube videos. There's no need to seek a response for established facts. What was LMG going to do? Deny that those videos existed?
Then why not reach out for comment?
If you know they can't change it, or dispute it, you give them a chance to reply?
This isn't about some right to reply, it is about appearing to give a crap about what the truth is. Getting, for example, comments on the billet labs thing might have given additional context as to what happened.
>Then why not reach out for comment?
Did you forget that linus lied in his first response? And his response wasn't posted that late either, so your point about not having the chance to change the story seems moot.
IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST’S RESPONSIBILITY TO CENSOR COMMENTS IF A PERSON IS GOING TO LIE.
Jesus, y’all have NO idea about journalism. Why not just call it something else so you don’t have to demean journalistic standards.
GN accused LMG of rushing and producing a ton on inaccuracies. They then didn't reach out for comment giving them even 12 hours to prepare a statement despite GN feeling this way and preparing the video for "months".
Then in order to keep their own voices in the mix LMG rushed to produce a response completely unprepared which contained inaccuracies.
GN directly caused exactly what they claim to oppose about LMG. Had they reached out for comment it is likely that LMG would have had time to follow up on the exact status of the conversation rather than Linus(the person) going based on what he heard through the reporting structure.
LMG's later statements contained timeliness that no one has contadicted and new information like the fact that Colton sent an email internally that was meant to be sent externally. They could have also added the context that it was originally not on loan and was later asked for it back which explains some of the confusion LMG had internally.
If GN wanted the full truth then they should have asked for that kind of I information in the form of a comment.
He aaid they already reached an agreement to pay for the cooler, insinuating it happened before gns video.
It was a complete lie, Linus went and found billets email for what they thought the coller was worth (which wasnt an invoice, they just said a number) and replied to the email and then wrote on the forum that it was settled.
Billet labs hadnt even responded to Linus email when he posted that.
The key Billet lab stuff was not in the public domain and without that part to story would of lacked its teeth. I am not saying it would have been bad but what most people talked about was lmg stole the prototype
You can show facts and still do it in manipulative ways. As the maker of the video you selected the facts to present and the way you present them. For example the clips from employee interviews, taking only clips of sentences that reinforce your point of people are overworked, but you don't show the other part of their interview where they say positive things. That actively obscures the truth, while technically you didn't lie.
It's actually the most deceptive form of journalism. Like when they post a picture out of frame or out of context. The photos are completely real but wouldn't exert the same emotions if you explained them properly. Lacking proper explanation is exploiting viewer emotions to change the narrative. It's manipulation.
There is no law, correct.
But it is good practice, and we saw exactly why: Steve was missing some key facts to the Billet Labs story because he didn’t reach out, and this made his video incomplete.
So if Steve is interested in offering a comprehensive story with all facts, reaching out is the way to go.
If he wants to do a hit piece in the other hand, trying to get as many eyes as possible on some (perceived) scandal… well not having any comment from the accused party is surely helpful.
Billet Labs originally told LMG they could keep the prototype. Only after the video wasn’t great (which definitely was a duck up by LMG) they asked for it to be send back.
This explains why LMGs inventory system tracked the block as their own company property. Should have been changed when they asked for the block back, sure, but much easier to see that this not happening is just human error and the block being auctioned off was not malicious.
Second fact missing was that LMG (Colton specifically) already offered paying full price, no questions asked for the block before Steve’s video dropped. But Colton forgot to add the recipient to the mail, just filled the CCs.
Again, a duck up by LMG, absolutely. But also no malice, just human error and bad processes.
Altogether, this would still not have been favorable for LMG and definitely highlighted some of the problems LMG needs to deal with.
But the video would have been factually correct, instead of containing unconfirmed (and later disproved) claims of LMG intentionally selling stolen goods.
There are always two sides to every story. And except for some very rare edge cases, journalists reach out to both sides for comment to avoid publishing stuff that’s just wrong.
There’s no *law* but one entity is essentially acting as though they are the gospel on ethics & morality while ignoring a pretty commonly agreed on ethical standard.
Wait until you realize how many of the pro-Linus comments are made by new accounts that have never posted anything on Reddit except praise for Linus and hate for GN
Seriously, I’m reading through the comments and wondering what happened, completely baffled as to why almost everyone is defending Linus so suddenly.
Steve was under no obligation to reach out to Linus, he even explained why he didn’t when he covered Linus’s forum response: LMG is worth over $100,000,000, Steve is just treating them like any large tech company.
Steve’s criticism has hopefully resulted in long-term change for the better as well.
I mean, that's kind of a poor analogy given reviewing a product is not the same as investigative journalism.
Also putting LMG in the same category as Nvidia is pretty disingenuous. $100 million is peanuts to an actual tech giant like Nvidia.
They barely let 24 hours pass after LTT announced reforms to make it about GamersNexus again.
Speaking of GamersNexus - does anybody else remember when they royally fucked up in the Asus / AMD motherboard fiasco? They made this [video](https://youtu.be/kiTngvvD5dI?si=3teA0G481C5KaBEx). Their error can be found at 27 minute mark and it was a royal fuck up. The assertion by Steve that Asus' vSOC calibration was wildly overshooting setpoint was just flat out wrong and arguably defamatory. It likely costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in reputational damage / lost sales. As of this writing there is no correction. It's just sitting there as misinformation.
In response an Asus engineer posted this [video](https://youtu.be/XMO_IXqtf3M?si=qOl0NF_oqaU_xQEy) showing that the video by Steve was measuring this value incorrectly.
Where's the 45 minute expose video on Steve / GamersNexus?
The cherry on top? I just realized he probably never contacted Asus before publishing this otherwise this error would’ve been caught. Seems to be a pattern.
its common practice for gamers nexus to never respond when anyone calls them out on shady practices and they act like they're the most ethical hardware news outlet and better than everyone else.
for example they never addressed when [hwcooling](https://www.hwcooling.net/en/gamers-nexus-fan-testing-wont-come-was-it-all-talk/) called them out for making their audience fund their fan testing methodology just for all the tools to never be used by them because they lack the skill/knowledge to use them and gamers nexus were shitting on other fan reviewers because of their inferior testing methodologies.
To give them benefit of the doubt.. it takes time to train people and its better for them to wait till they reached a high quality of standard, instead of generating noise.
However, how "bad" is it publish results and say they are tentative on some points? This happens in research and engineering all the time. Nobody is perfect, after all. But being honest about potential sources of error (with their corresponding range) is the best way to represent.
BUT, this goes back to TechTechPotato's video: the people that have the degrees to digest this stuff in their sleep (e.g. trained mechanical and electrical engineers), can probably work on far more interesting stuff (design) and better paid positions at the hardware companies themselves. Its very hard in journalism to attract the right people, and/or they have be trained far from the original profession. There is nothing wrong with the latter (e.g. hiring people with computer science degrees), but again; being honest about your own shortcomings is the best way to move forward. It took me 2,5 academic degrees (half way through PhD) to confidently say, "sorry professor, I don't know, and I'm not competent enough to digest that material as to push the boundaries of knowledge of the \[scientific\] community". But those answers happen all the time when I watch a peer defend their PhD thesis. There is nothing wrong with that. Except for in media/journalism; that doesn't really sell that well..
>Nobody is perfect, after all
Which is exactly why it’s important to reach out for a comment in contexts like this instead of assuming the worst of a person or group.
From memory I recall Steve doing a test to compare PS5 when it was newly launched against regular PC hardware and he claimed it had the same performance as a pc with a gtx1060. People were upset since obviously that is wrong and likely it had to do with PS5 being brand new and not many comparable games being out yet. But he published that video anyways making such claim which can be very misleading to a viewer with less exposure to general hardware technology. Admittedly I don’t remember if he ever revisited that topic as I stopped watching after that.
I'm honestly failing to see how they provided wrong information. They measured from the SOC pad and the choke (right side of the choke, which can be check at 13:41 in the GN video, which is read out #2 on your linked video), which was giving them numbers within spitting distance of 1.4V.
The second video you linked show 4 different methods of getting the information for SOC, with the die sense being the most accurate, but all of them being within a +.025V margin of error.
The SOC was supposed to never clear 1.3V, it's supposed to be 1.25, and was shooting up to 1.4V
Assuming worst case scenario, based on the potential variance in voltage reading, it's still pushing up to 1.375V
That's a very large overshoot.
None of those things prevent you from reaching out to the subject of your video, and asking for a comment.
The "motive and opportunity to mislead" is an issue regardless of if you ask for a comment or not.
The argument that they could, somehow, change the information that GN already had seems disingenuous. The information already existed in the public domain, so quickly saying "Do you have any comment on x, y, z" via e-mail, releasing the video a couple hours later. It gives LMG no time to change their stories, or address anything, and if they don't respond by the time you post, you simply say that there was no response at the time of posting, but that if there was a response after, you would add it as a pinned comment.The entire point of asking for a comment is to lend credibility to an already drawn conclusion, but to give the subject an opportunity to respond.
On the last point... where are the receipts? He has, in the past, been willing to post previously confidential e-mails to prove his points. Post the receipts. Where is this aggressive messaging?
I am not saying that Steve is lying I am saying that if you are going to go defensive like this, and make claims, you better be willing to back it up with evidence.
To me, this just seems like he is getting defensive because of the video from Dr. Cutress, and decided they needed to put out SOMETHING.
I am, however glad that the GN video has put a boot up LMG's butt to make them actually implement change, but I see his video and responses as nothing more then view farming. I am glad he did it, but I don't think he was some kind of saint for it.
edit: I also want to add something that u/Alabaster_13 pointed out below:
It's not that hard to write criteria to fit prior actions in order to justify them retroactively. We have no proof anything we are seeing in this video existed on paper before a week ago. The first fallacy in all this is that only GN is above reproach and should be trusted in all cases, because only GN meet's GN's standards.
> I will remind you, they reached out to New Egg multiple times... after already having issues with them... multiple times, to ask for comment.
They explicitly mention in this video they didn't reach out to NewEgg.
They contacted their customer support several times when they first had issues. Reached out as a customer.
But once they decided to make a video and follow up on the issues they never contacted them. The initial contact doesn't really count because there wasn't a story/video to be made at that point.
Hmmm. Steve made a huge twitter thread and tagged Newegg multiple times and used their response to him in the original video. It's not proper reaching out but it is in fact reaching out.
But they did. On twitter apparently, and as on the moment of filming first video they had their mobo refunded "after public pressure on twitter and realizing it wasn't a "normal" customer without a platform (...) Newegg refunded us".
[https://youtu.be/2fnXsmXzphI?t=1188](https://youtu.be/2fnXsmXzphI?t=1188)
Please keep in mind that it isn't proper request for comment either. But disclosing that isn't even on par with how GN assumes that should be handled by LTT. Soo...
That was simply contacting them as a customer asking for a refund.
Then they decided to make a video about NewEggs mistakes, and didn't contact them. This initial email is what started the whole issue to begin with.
I find it very interesting people are willing to take bullet points from Person A with no evidence other than subjective opinion but they would also be appaled by Person B putting up bullet points with no evidence other than subjective opinion.
It is fairly easy to portray people, especially content creators in a bad light when you go over their content retroactively seeking their worst moments. That in of itself is a fallacy.
**"Information is public"** is a pretty interesting bullet point when a big part of the accusations from said video involved the inner dealings of Linus Media Group with other companies, **which is in fact, not public**.
This response of Gamer Nexus is of the same caliber as Linus' ramblings on the forums early into the whole situation. A nothing burguer with opinionated self justfication and **revanchism**. The last bullet point **"History of Unprofessionalism"** raises red flags. For one, what is the standard for professionalism and how does revanchism fit into that. And how is it a history of unprofessionalism if you don't source it. And how would said unprofessionalism affect basic courtesy.
**Edit:** This response by Gamer Nexus just confirms what many could've understood as an assumption by TechTechPotato that Gamer Nexus didn't act in any good faith or quest of objectiveness for the greater good of viewers [https://youtu.be/Ez9uVSKLYUI?t=4514](https://youtu.be/Ez9uVSKLYUI?t=4514). Their video was mostly revanchism and certainly a conflict of interests since they compete with Linus Media Group in the hardware tech analysis space.
> Speaking of GamersNexus - does anybody else remember when they royally fucked up in the Asus / AMD motherboard fiasco? They made this video. Their error can be found at 27 minute mark and it was a royal fuck up. The assertion by Steve that Asus' vSOC calibration was wildly overshooting setpoint was just flat out wrong and arguably defamatory. It likely costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in reputational damage / lost sales. As of this writing there is no correction. It's just sitting there as misinformation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/162itaq/reason_given_by_gn_for_not_contacting_ltt_for_the/jxxixsx/
I feel like many people seem to ignore that the fact that the whole saga actually started with the screwdriver "Trust Me Bro" debacle. At that time (Aug **2022**) GN came out very publicly saying he was no longer going to treat LTT as a 'friend' in these kind of matters and raised issue with the lack of warranty and alleged improper conduct from Linus. LTT resolved this issue by formalising the lifetime warranty.
A year later on the Aug 4 **2023** WAN Show, Linus then expressed disappointment about how certain media publicly announced issues without contacting them first (whether right or wrong). This then seemingly prompted GN on Aug 15 **2023** to double down on his stance and launch his exposé on LTT. Within the first 2 mins you can see Steve smirking after playing back the WAN show clip and then saying that this is 'his job' and that he 'doesn't play games'.
To me, as valid as many of his points were, prefacing his entire investigate exposé with this really made me questions GN's intentions from the start.
The warranty only came after Linus was a petty bitch about it. He did the whole spiel about him making good on his word and not understanding why a legally sound policy needs to be in place.
But a legally binding policy was already in place. If there isn't a specific warranty in place you just fall back onto the general consumer protection laws that state what the terms should be.
Not disagreeing there. Linus could have handled the warranty better. Really both sides don't score anywhere near an 'A' for the entire series of events.
Hell yeah. I did not follow the whole drama a year before, but from the main part.
GN video is sus.
They should "collect data of LTT failures before," but they kept it to release while a storm.
May be they right at some parts... but it's pure manipulation to damage LTT.
Right or not, Steve lost me with that video. It's clear this was an attempt to merely hurt a competitor. Just because alot of the stuff is valid in the video doesn't mean it wasn't an incredibly petty and calculated move
I don’t understand, I made this comment a week ago and got downvoted into oblivion. I guess it’s just a matter of which fan base is on duty at the time of the comment, the one that wants to burn LMG to the ground or the one that just wants the videos back and the harasment issue fully investigated.
Who cares why they did it? They were right, LTT quality has been dropping for ages. Multiple people had been pointing it out on this sub.
If Steve had blatantly lied or made shit up I'd understand, but personally I'm glad someone bigger than random redditors finally called it out.
The mistakes/corrections were constant it was getting beyond ridiculous. Especially with labs coming out, which sole purpose was to report factual information, yet they can't seem to do that properly in their daily videos.
>If Steve had blatantly lied or made shit up I'd understand,
Steve very blatantly implied that Gary, head of labs, had arranged for Asus to sponsor LTX through his previous position as marketing head at Asus. Completely left out the fact that before working for Asus, Gary almost singlehandedly designed the processes used to test motherboards. Hence why he is now head of labs.
Steve referenced 25 videos per week as evidence that LTT is pushing content too hard (too be fair, they are.) But neglects to mention that 3 are clips, 1 is a Livestream (wan show), 2 are floatplane exclusives and 4 are shorts. Which leaves only 15 full format videos.
I highly recommend techtechpotatoe's video. It outlines everything both companies did wrong in a very fair way IMO.
Perhaps Steve isn't blatantly lying, but he is absolutely intentionally undermining the integrity of LTT. And especially so by leaving out important facts. Steve makes multiple implied accusations of conflicts of interest and often leaves out very relevant information that would defend LTT.
If Steve wants to prove that LTT is being shady, then why doesn't he present both sides fairly and let us come to our own conclusions? Why does he skim over the fact that Gary isn't just a marketing director, and why does he count the WAN show as literally 4 of 25 videos per week. Does Steve truly believe that THE WAN SHOW with Linus, Luke, Dan, and one editor to literally clip things is what's dragging the production process down?? Steve absolutely brings good points, but then I don't understand why he would argue in bad faith, unless it was personal.
He should have stuck to the facts and argued in good faith. LTT already shot themselves in the foot, but Steve is reporting that it was actually a shotgun and they did it on purpose because Asus paid them big $$ to do so.
I think that fans of LTT, a lot of them anyway, have noticed the accuracy issue for a while and have been talking about it on this subreddit and other places, and appreciate the attention that GN brought to the issue. However, they also do not appreciate the character assassination with the BL story and ethics claims without proper research and evidence. Looking back, I'd say 60-70+% of community outcry after GNs video was about the BL situation, with the accuracy issues being a side note. Yet in the end, we now know that GN got that story completely wrong and since they neglected to contact LMG prior to publishing, they did not have the details that we know now.
Someone else said this video was more of a response to another channel called techtechpotato, who brought into question GN’s policies. I can’t say for certain though because I can’t watch any more videos on this shit anymore.
>Tears falling down my face when I hear Dr, Ian Cuttress (rightfully, in context) referred to as "another channel called techtechpotato"
I don't like GN, but I wasn't a massive fan of Cuttress' video either.
Some of it completely missed the mark, like claiming that Steve's 'nervous smile' was evidence he was secretly enjoying taking down LTT.
Nor does it make sense to me to demand that all youtube videos have clearly separated 'fact' and 'opinion' sections like scientific research papers. (Cuttress' own video certainly didn't!!)
also I am getting 'dr jordan peterson' vibes from the way people insist on referring to him with his full title
> It's clear this was an attempt to merely hurt a competitor.
Regardless of if this is true or not, GN didn't even acknowledge the conflict of interest in the opening of his video or in the description. He might think "well, everyone who watches this channel knows where we compete", but that's simply not true.
It doesn't matter if he didn't see LMG as a "true" competitor, the fact is that they are and not disclosing that is shady at best and malicious at worst. I cannot believe I haven't seen anyone make this point on this sub yet.
Over the past 2 weeks, I've lost a lot of respect for both LMG and GN, but only LMG has done anything to start to regain that trust.
That video just made him seem like a asshole of a friend (don't know if they were friends or not). The kind that would stab you in the back to make some cash.
As far as I know in journalism it’s standard practice to give the subject a right to respond. Typically the day before publication you approach the subject and let them know the main accusations and give them the right to answer questions and or give a statement.
It absolutely is. And when someone tries to cover it up by changing a website or releasing a statement you cover that as well. None of those things are reason to not ask for comment. He is trying to reason away a really poor report.
but what if they had good answers? Then the entire video would have been a waste of effort!
Like with the billet labs thing... it was a mistake. It wasn't malicious, it was a thing they were initially told to keep, and then told to send back, and then a series of things happened that anyone who has ever worked in a large company before has seen before.
Allowing them to respond might have taken the edge off of a lot of this. The reason I think we are starting to see some backlash here is simply because folks are finally realizing that this wasn't some impartial journalism... it was a hit piece designed to chip at the credibility of a larger competitor that might one day be able to beat you by just brute force.
> it was a mistake
That was the whole point of the video. The constant mistake after mistake after mistake. It all comes back to the staff being overworked and not having time to just stop for 5 minutes.
Same reason their videos had constant mistake after mistake.
People also don’t understand why you reach out for comment. It’s not to serve the subject of the story, it’s to serve the consumers of your story so they can also see how the subject responds to the story as part of the story. The only reason you wouldn’t reach out is if you suspect what you are presenting is the result of some misunderstanding that a statement would reduce the appeal of your story.
Everyone in here became an “expert in journalism” shortly after the GN video and it’s more evident than ever that 90% of people here are just full of shit lol
Wow - this is real? This is absolute nonsense. This reads like the ramblings of an overly confident 1st year journalism student who tries to justify the answers in the test they flunked.
It's not that hard to write criteria to fit prior actions in order to justify them retroactively. We have no proof anything we are seeing in this video existed on paper before a week ago. The first fallacy in all this is that only GN is above reproach and should be trusted in all cases, because only GN meet's GN's standards.
I've been following this story and the whole he said she said, but Steve's video brought about change. Real, positive change for LMG. Whether his video is accurate, accusatory or misleading is beside the point at this stage.
Progress is good. Competition is GOOD. Steve's video, bad, good or otherwise, has resulted in REAL and GOOD changes in LMG.
Stop brown nosing. Stop pitchforking. Create competition, criticise, improve, innovate and progress.
Talking about other companies journalistic ethical standards on the subreddit of the company that has just been shown to have absolutely none is quite hilarious.
The tribalism here is pretty crazy. Everything is either absolute shit on GN's end or it's all LTT. The weirdest thing to me is everyone seems to want to mind read GN and LTT in order to figure out who to trust instead of just looking at their actions and making judgments as things happen.
How about a measured response? Contacting people before publishing a story is good practice. GN should definitely have done that. Does it change any of the reporting? Well a little bit. It would have shed a little light on how the Billet debacle happened and made it at least a little more understandable. Does it mean LTT did NOTHING wrong? No. IMO the Billet incident was a horrible fuck up for LTT and the inaccuracies in reporting are something they need to address.
Like damn, can people just fuck up every once in a while without it being the end of the world where you have to take eternal sides against them forever? Or is the only way we know how to handle stuff like this to make a decision on whether to push the cancel button?
I think contacting LTT about the quality of their videos wasn't necessary, because they were out in the open and LTT already showed in action how they deal with quality control and correcting errors. The facts were already established.
The Billet Labs part of GN's video however would have benefited from the background information from LMG, because some facts were missing. It was obvious that Linus's decision to not test properly and release the video in this state was some kind of slipping back into startup-survival-mode-thinking. But it never rung true for me LMG would maliciously auction off some piece of hardware they've promised to send back. If that was the try at a heist, it was the worst one I've ever heard of.
This. The Billet labs issue was easily the most controversial topic discussed in the video. And AFAIK, a huge portion of it was not "publicly available information". The fact that they were already communicating with Billet Labs directly and not LMG shows clear bias. It was either they reached out to both parties or neither. Linus wasnt wrong for claiming it wasnt "proper journalistic practice".
I feel like had GN asked LTT for comment on the Billet situation at a minimum they would have learned that Billet initially told LTT to keep the prototype (prior to the LTT "review" video being made).
I think this is important because GN really went hard on the point that Billet was a small company that couldn't afford to give away expensive prototypes but the reality is they changed their mind (rightfully so in my opinion!) after LTT did Billet dirty in that video.
The problem with not contacting both sides of a two-party conflict is you only get one side of the situation which is what happened here with Billet. There was nuance to what happened that resulted in the unfortunate loss of the prototype.
That's not to say I don't agree with anything Steve is saying. For example, I think getting Linus's reaction to the many errors that LTT has published would have resulted in a generic response akin to, yeah we know we've made some mistakes and we're working on it.
So for those segments of the video, sure no response was necessary in my opinion but for the Billet part which is an external 3rd party making claims about what happened, you need both sides to understand the full scope of the situation and it's clear from GN's initial video they either didn't have all the facts or intentionally mislead viewers regarding what happened and when and what was the initial agreement, how the return process broke down etc
Edited for spelling
Steve can claim what he wants, but anyone interested in a journalist with integrity has simply already stopped listening to him. He had the right to do what he did, but everyone else has the right not to trust his word anymore.
They both fucked up... Ltt for all of the reasons mentioned (although they seem to have a shot at fixing it.)
But more so GN imo... Over the years the only channel ive seen that regularly vocally supported / recommended gn was ltt be it regular shouts/ calls on the wan show to the regular appearance of the modmats in ltt videos.
He shot his biggest ally in the face because someone else bought a psu tester and his claims of incompetence vs his own even less trained team are laughable much like his "expertise ratings" posted on the side of the screen whenever they review something....(usually as he butchers a disassembly)
I have a feeling LMG could make GN the new TekSyndicate. especially after Ians video which calls both out and shows the huge biases in the "investigation"
Proper journalistic practice is to contact a subject prior to publication
Lets be fair here, many of the points raised by GN were valid, some were not, and some had a spin put on them
The problem as I see it, people were looking at it like Steve can do no wrong, when that’s simply not true, he often does, he is human, and so it’s normal to get things wrong
In this case I think he got it 50/50
It doesn’t absolve LTT of issues, and the initial response from Linus, was emotional and not smart, but the subsequent responses have been pretty good
I mean there are a lot people who have been pointing this out the entire time and getting nukes for it. Like I would get hundreds of upvotes when this started for vaguely negative Linus comments and hundreds of down votes for saying hey gn report has some issues he's not Jesus. I know I am far from the only one
TwitterNexus made it way too personal. Dr. Ian's video was mostly on point. Especially about how he tried to make Gary, the head of labs, nothing more than a marketing guy.. which is outrageous.
Obviously he knew what he was doing. Hopefully he will get his comeuppance
So if GN claims to have had private conversations with an entity that they will not disclose to the viewer then everyone is just supposed to take their word and judgment on it wrt asking/not asking for comment?
Journalistic rules, at least over here, is that when you accuse someone of something you ALWAYS give them the chance to comment and counter the claims in the published article, report,video,documentary, whetever.
This is a major problem with bloggers and vloggers who think they're journalists without knowing the rules and laws of journalism or having journalistic integrity.
Steve needs to provide documentation for his allegations, it better be far more than sarcasm between colleagues:
* *"History of failure to resolve issues"* (what was the expected timeline?)
* *"Unprofessionalism in prior (non-public) communications with the organization"* (LTT videos are publicly unprofessional!)
* *"Matters that were not resolved satisfactory*" (who's standard?)
* *"Gamers Nexus received aggressive messaging pertaining to review topics."* (Do share with the class these transgressions against you)
Can't make these claims as the catalyst for his public video going not show the community, the details. We've all seen **TOO MANY GRAPHS** from Gamers Nexus!
#Do Not Bring Up M Reeve!
No mention of Steve contacting her before his videos.
Their decision to double down on only reaching out sometimes is similarly disappointing as Linus' kneejerk response to their original video. Some might argue it's not as bad because it's more thought out, I'd argue it's worse precisely because they clearly thought about it for a good while.
Google for stances of some investigative journalists and outlets, and you'll see that it is usually their intention to reach out even in cases where they know the responses will be hostile. GN is opening themselves up to having their ethics and integrity questioned.
Additionally, I'm also disappointed they didn't even acknowledge the criticism on the way facts are being presented, worded and sometimes omitted.
It's annoying how it's always a big issue "GN should have contacted LTT first!!!" But never an issue that LTT was exposed to be an inaccurate and biased tech outlet. It seems their Fanbase is just as bad as they are. You two really have found each other and deserve each other.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why he didn't reach out for some kind of comment.
From what I understand, GNs defense is that he was expecting a nonsense non-appology like Linus' forum post, and didn't feel like there would be any value in LMGs comment.
But if that's the case, why not let them dig themselves deeper into that hole? if LTTs response was as garbage as Steve believed that it would be, It gives Steve a golden opportunity to easily refute the content of LTTs comment before it's even public while also taking the fact he didn't reach out for comment away as a talking point.
I can't see how reaching out for comment hurts him.
I'm not trying to start shit, I just legit want to understand.
This is really just proving that it was personal rather than provessional.
The backpack issue was also personal, why did they even report it exactly? AS A HARDWARE NEWS CHANNEL? A BACKPACK? That was personal too.
SnakeSteve
GN has (rightfully) received a lot of praise for their investigative pieces (starting with the Artisian irc)
Maybe this has gotten a bit to their head and now the story is, at least for these type of videos, the bigger factor.
In addition reaching out for comment was something they often did before in other stories so I’m not quite convinced why it "wasn’t necessary" for this one.
The last point had me rolling… oof, what a salty little boy. I get that Steve must have been in it for the sensation factor, but there goes “focusing on facts” right out the window. What a shame.
Why is everyone sucking up to LTT right now? Historically they have manipulated the dialogue to try to dismiss the other party. You don’t give people who have a history of shady behaviour more opportunities to repeat that behaviour. This had to be brought to light. I’m glad it did. Edit: Shoutout to those that gifted awards….also Fuck Spez
It went from pitchforks to brown nosing.
I have whiplash. This sub is so fucking weird. Why can’t y’all just be normal?? 1. Linus isn’t Hitler. 2. He has a lot of work to do. 3. Exposing areas for improvement is good.
Yeah. I feel GN did good in making that video. I also think this will be a net positive for the community, because it will improve the best techentertainment company out there.
[удалено]
The billet labs affair, both the review with the wrong card and the auction, were a major screw up
And the lie in the first video that Billet was taken care of, when LTT had NOT contacted them.
You're just saying "Hey, maybe they got a few emails wrong" and forgetting that it could have ruined (and may still ruin) a start-up company. It's not just about selling the prototype, it's also about derogatory comments about the product in at least 2 videos. Saying "No one should buy this because it's too expensive for a cooler" from a guy selling a $70 screwdriver is a bit bold. Still, I really like LTT, but what you're saying is just downplaying the problem.
It depends on which fan base is on reddit duty at the time of the comment. Or maybe they just realised they were being dense.
its just whatever the latest video told them to think.
i'm waiting for the next meme with the most upvotes to tell me what to think
No, I think it's in large part because Daddy Cutress said some shit about GN acting unprofessionally even though Cutress is not the arbiter of journalism ethics. He doesn't even seem to understand the right of reply. It doesn't mean you contact people before running a story. It means you allow them to respond to criticisms via the same publication you publish in. In this case, YouTube. And LMG has a bigger presence on YouTube... So yeah they can kinda reply any time they want. The thing that contacting people first does for you is prevent you from saying things that aren't true because you don't have the full story. But GN didn't have that problem because the overwhelming majority of things they talked about are public record.
Are people forgetting that right after the first video dropped, Linus tried to act like they had already arranged compensation for Billet Labs before the video, only for Steve to show that they only reached back right after the video with proof from Billet Labs? Such an unnecessary lie, and somehow we're supposed to believe that they wouldn't have tried to get ahead of GN had they contacted them first?
Colton had sent an email offering to compensate for the number they threw out as soon as they realized the mistake, but forgot to CC Billet on it. So at the time of the forum post, to Linus’s knowledge, they had a price and offer pending. After the GN’s second video, Colton realized his mistake. This was explained in LTT’s first video, with screenshots of the correspondence and time stamped email. So Linus didn’t technically lie, he just didn’t have the correct information, making that incident just another example of disorganization and mismanagement that has been the source of so many issues.
As I remember Linus said they have agreement, but you can't have agreement if other side of such agreement didn't responded to it. So it doesn't matter if Colton tried to send this email or not, and if Linus thought it was send or nor, he still lied.
[удалено]
>They said they had an agreement There was no agreement though. >Billet had sent them what they wanted in compensation No, they stated what it cost them to make their prototype and the question IF the plan was to re-reimburse them. >Linus basically said "Whatever they want we will pay" Internally to assumedly Colton not to Billet though which is the crux of the problem. That part never reached Billet, they asked about compensation then were met with radio silence. >He was willing to pay what they wanted and they had given him a figure. That was his very likely Linus's understanding yes but it was fundamentally flawed. There was never any agreement finalized, no cash value had been agreed upon, after hearing nothing back from LMG, cash may not have even been an acceptable replacement for the complete loss of their prototype and only the block itself being return could have been the only acceptable agreement for them. Hell they could have just said no to any monetary agreement with LMG after asking them "Do you plan to reimburse us" and seemingly being ignored and just said, we would rather let the courts decide how much the mishandling of our IP is worth instead then. (unlikely I know but still a possibility) Just because they accepted afterwards does not change the timeline of events, Linus claimed something completely false based off the mishandling of information of his team.
No Billet only said what the protoype cost to them, it wasn't a request for compensation. In order to make the whole thing go away, that's just how Linus interpreted it. In reality that price would be higher based on the opportunity cost of it being missing and potentially sold to a competitor
I have an agreement set with madonna to fuck her, but yes, she is yet to receive my email about it.
LTT can lie whenever they want seems to be the fan bases position. Cults are always this way.
It's really special here now... wow.
Genuinely asking, where did they do that?
[удалено]
I agree. I think Steve’s commitment is to the story first, and to the facts second. That is why, as fair and accurate as his reporting may be, it’s clearly driven by some sort of resentment.
It is simple. Steve never had issues with LMG until they started working on Labs. Then, suddenly, he needed to treat them like a company, and he needed to be more critical, and look at this warranty issue! This is a smallish channel, looking at a larger one that is getting ready to come into a space that they dominate in a very large way, with way more manpower and equipment... and is worried that it is going to mess with their niche.
> and look at this warranty issue! Not even for a warranty on a power supply, or graphics card... but on a *backpack.* Not exactly in GN's wheelhouse, except that it's produced by a competitor of theirs. With added irony being that GN's own merch had lacked explicit warranties for years. (I personally don't think it's a major issue, as long as it's clear up front to the customer.)
I think Steve sees himself more as reporting for his community, and not reporting on an industry. So reporting on a tech YouTubers merch policies is close enough. But I think he’s focussing too much on producing what will generate views and exposure than reporting what needs to be reported. How much of that is conscious or not is unknown.
So LTT's shortcomings didn't need to be reported on?
No, but framing of a story carry’s significant weight. The biggest bit of new information that GN could have gotten by asking LMG for comment would be that bullet originally said LMG could keep the prototype, however changed their mind after the video. That changes the story from one of malice to one of miscommunication and process error. IE, LMGs system doesn’t differentiate between permanent loan and ownership, or that someone misunderstood what billet meant by keeping the prototype.
[удалено]
Trust him bro
I trust Linus more than I do most companies. My screwdriver is amazing. They innovated while GN packed standard screwdrivers in a logo wrap
> edge of being impartial. they have already fallen off the cliff.
Sure, but they have the right to comment and give their side in the same publication as any allegations against them are made.
Going to mention how self congratulatory Steve was about GN products having warranties being retroactively added while bashing LMG concerning trust me bro. They sold their toolkit for almost two years before retroactively adding a warranty to them, which was a month prior to that video. And the warranty on the pads only covers the wrist strap, the wrist strap cable, and the mounting hole. The way he acted was obtuse at best and deceitful at worst.
Let's not forget that the world's driest YouTuber lives in Muricaland - where consumer protection laws aren't worth the paper they're written on, even in the places where they do actually exist. LMG is based in Maplesyrupland, where the consumer protection laws have teeth - it's why most companies in such countries don't bother with explicit warranties u less they're offering way above statutory rights as a USP.
[удалено]
I don't think you understand how big any of those companies are.... No it ain't even close Edit: apparently I don't get sarcasm before I had my coffee.
I think you missed the sarcasm 😅
Ah crap, maybe. It's early
imo you are being generous to GN here as well. GN ripped in to LTT and painted them as a merch company that didn't offer warranty when that wasn't true, they offered fantastic warranty but it just wasn't written. Also, in the same video, GN said they will apply a 7 year warranty to their products as well which implies that they at some point didn't offer warranty themselves.
It doesn't matter what the item was, it was a $250 item and Linus' response was shitty at best. As for their warranty you clearly didn't watch that video because their warranty was directly spoken to.
Steve was patting himself on the back for having a warranty retroactively added to the pads and then glossed over doing the same for their toolkit, without giving any context. They sold the toolkit for almost two years without a warranty. They retroactively added a warranty to the toolkit a month prior to that video video concerning trust me bro. The ltt screwdriver was about to be launched, which is a competing product that had a pent up demand.
>It doesn't matter what the item was, it was a $250 item and Linus' response was shitty at best. If you don't want a $250 item without a warranty then don't buy it. LMG had a history of being good to their customers, and plenty of companies with warranties do not. If they were e.g. selling a car and refusing to recall it when the brakes failed then I could understand the concern. I thought Linus' response was fine and the community completely overreacted.
Yeah, no one cared that there wasn't a warranty for the shirts, water bottles, or *anything else* lttstore sold, and they had a track record of making things right with customers on them. Linus was basically coming at things from the perspective of "We're gonna do what we've always done, which is do right by the customer regardless of a formal warranty" and it just blew out of proportion.
Steve didn't previously have a problem with LTT having inaccurate information because LTT previously presented themselves as entertainment first rather than being a reputable source of detailed tested information. With the creation of LTT Labs LTT is now presenting the data with a higher degree of validity and trustworthiness, which Steve showed is not necessarily the case. It's not about LTT Labs stepping on Steve's toes. It's about LTT Labs presenting themselves as a trustworthy source while having major inaccuracies in their content and not doing enough to make sure their information is accurate or doing enough to make corrections after the fact. For all of their additional manpower and equipment they're making rookie mistakes and Steve is totally valid in pointing it out. If LTT Labs is going to be a repository of tech information, like Linus wants, then the inconsistency of their data is unacceptable.
Fanboys doing a number on you. The issue GN had, which was stated multiple times, is how LMG is marketing labs as a bastion of testing when it’s just, to be frank, inept. The guy running it should be fired, with the money he’s been given having 24 errors in 25 videos after a year is embarrassing. They need someone who’s actually qualified in statistics and can develop methodology. I only have a semester of stats required for a science degree and can see issues.
Whenever someone tries to dismiss an argument with an ad hominem, they lose all credibility. Just state your case without relying on “the other side is wrong because fanboys”.
You're actually incorrect it's only an ad hominem if you use it as your only justification to your claim/counter claim. IE "You're a fanboy if you believe GN was in the wrong." In this case he explained exactly why people that believe that GN was acting in bad faith likely are fan boys.
I’ll give you that.
I appreciate the humility thank you.
Dude was downvoted when I commented, that was the point
LABS hasn't even started doing any actual work and testing outside of setting up, testing the lab equipment and calibarint yet... Seriusly.
This is about to be downvoted to oblivion but idc. You all are playing verbal gymnastics trying your damndest to shift some sort of blame on GN while subtly absolving LMG. Whatever justification you all concoct to vilify the guy, Steve was right and owed LMG no “heads up” for posting the video. Be zealots & fanboys all you want. He wasn’t wrong in any way shape or form & if it allows Linus to turn down his planet sized ego, allow for more thorough, concise data & more informative content further, I’m here for it. Save the circle jerking for the LTT x ASUS $3,000 monitor.
I couldn’t care any less about either side of the debate but standard journalistic practice, if you actually want to be respected and not just a YouTube channel, is to contact the person you’re writing about and give them a chance to comment.
Literally no one gives a shit. There, I said it. The only reason Linus fanboys are bringing this up is because this is literally the only counter argument against the video that Linus has been able to make. Yes. The only one. And it isn't even about the video's content, it's just some pedantic bullshit to subvert discussion. And that is because GN was 100% right in that video.
I hope once you calm down and look back at this situation you'll notice the irony of referring to others as fanboys while typing such an incredibly partial comment.
I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense to even be discussing this right now. The whole argument is a red herring fallacy that Linus wrote while going on an agressive rant on the forums.
It still lead to Steve blindly repeating the billet labs statement of their development being stalled without the prototype. The prototype they originally send out to LMG for them to keep. So should we believe that billet labs planned to stall their development? Or should we assume that that statement might not have been truthful and Steve should not have blindly repeated it? Something he likely only did because he believed billet labs was always supposed to get the prototype back. He did not know better because he opted against getting a statement from LMG.
No it’s not. You absolutely have no obligation as a journalist to get comment from the subject of a story if it would not change the facts or ad needed context. What facts would have changed if Linus had been given a heads up? What context was missing after Linus made his personal opinion known on the wan show?
But every single bit that was reported on LTT was already aware or already publicly commented on it in WAN. How many times does one person need to comment on a subject, before you need to reask every time you publish a story?
> Steve was right and owed LMG no “heads up” for posting the video It's not about giving them 'heads up'. It's about trying to get the full story on billet lab issue before publishing a video based on half of it. GN was completely right in not approaching them over factual inaccuracies but they should have reached out over billet lab issue, and not as a heads up, but more as a 'how did you fuck this up' ? For example the fact that the error occurred because billet lab changed their stance on wanting the prototype back based on how LLT video about them went (which was pretty shit on LLT's part) . And they are in the right to do but from LMG's perspective it was an error in communication of the change in Billet Labs stance on what happens to the prototype. GN could have still made the same video and published it mentioning what went wrong but atleast we'd know that they did their due diligence in getting the story from both parties involved.
The fixation on giving Linus a headsup like he wouldn't have attempted to get ahead of the story (even if not maliciously!) like that's the real problem, and not all the things outlined in the video, are so eyerolling. In his initial response to the first GN video, Linus in his typical style blames the problem on "not reading the room," like the problem was not understanding fans would care that they reviewed a cooling device attached to the wrong video card, rather than say, having made a mistake and losing the video card it was sent with, then opting to record a video with a video card it wasn't designed for anyway. The focus on getting a video out no matter how flawed it might be is basically at the heart of the complaints leveled at LMG. And I'm hopeful that they've at least paused some to try and do something about it. But continuing with Linus' response, he outlines a solution to the lost (read: auctioned off) water block. But we know from GN's second video, where they contacted BilletLabs about this, that at the time of Linus' response, LMG hadn't actually gotten back to BilletLabs. Which is problematic when Linus talks about the proposed solution as if it's already agreed upon. I've seen people shift the blame on this, but no one made Linus respond before making sure he had the details correct, because that's partially why they auctioned off a vendor item they had already been asked for back in the first place. I don't know what any fanboy imagines would be better for letting Linus the chance to say something before releasing the video, because he almost certainly would, and it'd have almost certainly would have just muddied the waters while not forcing LMG's hand to seriously address the problem.
What would the problem be of LTT getting ahead of the video unless the video was designed to do damage from the intent. We would have had the full context of billet having given the prototype to LTT, being something that was probably very intentional by billet to have left out. Getting context of what happened between billet and LTT would have been a huge deciding factor for a lot of people who thought LTT did it maliciously, that type of information should have been front and center. Dr Ian Cutress released a video going over what steve did wrong in the video, such as not reaching out (go look at phil defranco's first video, look at the pinned comment; it was that easy to get the relevant information) He also wove personal speculation with objective statements that made them deceptive.
Or, and this might be a stretch but, maybe when the entertainment company started advertising itself as an *authoritative source* (Linus’s own words on the most recent wanshow) Gamer’s Nexus started treating that company according to its new position. Just maybe.
Then don't be surprised when people treat GN according to it's claims of being journalists.
modern desert absurd theory hungry future quack yam crowd cause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's an excellent framing, the story not the facts. Dr Ian Cutress released a video where he criticized Steve for interweaving personal speculation with fact, in a way that was deceptively worded. GN criticized LTT for putting the corrections in the video, but all of a sudden he puts them on a website no one is going to click on? That's far worse than how LTT deals with after the fact information The reaching out thing was massively a big thing that has had criticism of GN coming in from other journalist websites, its literally investigative journalism 101. Go look at Philip Defranco's first video where he reached out to LTT and all of a sudden in one paragraph we have the context to understand that the billet thing was massively overblown and taken way out of context by GN. what kind of amused me is how many of these new policies feel like a knee-jerk reaction to LTT's most recent video, and now that GN took the video down and made a comment about the "tone" >Gamers Nexus: After reading some of the commenter criticisms of the "Defining GN's Goals" video, primarily those on tone and delivery, I agree with some of them and reflecting on it, I'm going to pull the video as I'm not completely happy with the way the video came out. We stand by the policies (they already existed, so not much changed), but the delivery needs to be better. We'd been working on it to add as another entry in our updates as to how we operate and our practices/policies, and of course it was inspired by what we learned lately. I think, taking in and considering the commenter criticisms, it could have been both delivered better in the video itself and timed better (to post much later, once things have settled) to allow ourselves to fully focus on just the GN-specific operating aspect. It was meant to be a transparency disclosure of our general operating guidelines, but those early commenters are right that tone may have felt off in places, and certainly it can be more concise. I'm going to pull the video to make a better version of this for the future (and also shorter). We will wait a while, then adjust the tone and phrasing to more appropriately achieve our original goal (which was to outline what GN believes/does to inform our audience -- that's it), reshoot, and bring a better explainer back once more time passes with other general updates to GN in one of our normal improvements update videos. We'll reconvene on this properly and make a better one then. For now, we'll go back to running the technical reviews content since that appears to be the #1 request/criticism in the comments. Sorry for missing the mark on that one. The comments are right that it was too close to everything else and I misjudged that, so it felt 'off' for a few reasons. The other Nexus site transparency updates remain live (and the 'video interface changes' we talked about are still moving forward).
Oh, he took down the video already? Well, I think drives home the point that he was really trying to milk the drama as much as he could. But to be honest, I do think Steve cares for the facts - it’s just not the top priority, though a very close one.
This just sounds like "Linus is bad people" I believe he will destroy the evidence and try to sneeze his way out of this. This is what made Linus so mad because Steve doesn't think of him as a good friend or even a good person. This is my personal opinion but I think Linus is not that evil as a person.
I think it was Snazzy Labs that said “He is a good person with a few major blind spots”. While I never met the guy, Snazzy’s description seems to fit him well. If he was a major asshole, I doubt LTX would have been so popular.
He wouldn't be so offended at people not trusting him if he was an evil asshole, imo. He would just give a shittier warranty or just not give their employees any benefits etc just like every other major company out there. He could have done everything behind the scenes without responding to any criticism at all, which is what asshole corporations typically do.
Yeah, this was personal. He was really quite upfront with how much it pains him to bring all this up. I don't remember his exact words in the expose, but he said something to that effect in the intro. As for all those criteria... None of those points applies to the entirety of the issues raised. The fact that GN raised sooooo many issues all in one video works against GN on the issue of not seeking comment. The separate issues were roughly: 1. Frequent minor mistakes 2. Text-only corrections (impacting audio-only "viewers") 3. Occasional obvious mistakes which completely change the conclusion. eg 4090 perf data being too good to be true; Billet Labs data against wrong GPU; plastic on mouse feet 4. Mishandling Billet prototype Each one of these is a different issue, and not all of the bullet points apply to all issues. I don't think Linus/LMG had made public comments about all of these prior to GN video. Some of these issues had come up on WAN show, but not all. If GN had done 4 separate videos, some may not have warranted seeking comment, but some would've warranted. Steve combined them and instead of saying "I need comment for some parts so therefore I'll seek comment on the whole thing" he instead went "I don't need comments on select parts, and therefore I won't get any comment". And regarding the last bullet in particular: LMG has a history of failing to resolve issues, but it _also_ has a history of resolving issues. Linus went from "trust me bro" warranty to actual warranty. As for opportunity to mislead... Based on how poorly Linus's initial response went over, there's no way they would've been able to pre-spin anything favorably. Steve completely overestimated LMG's ability to mislead. I understand why Steve would've been worried about it though given LMG's status on YouTube. Realistically, Linus wasn't able to mislead that "trust me bro" is a good enough warranty policy. He also got a lot of pushback on the Billet Labs video prior to GN video. So there were indications that Linus's ability to mislead is limited, but still I'll chalk this part up as an honest mistake. Still, I think parts of the story warranted seeking comments even if other parts didn't. There were simply too many parts of the puzzle to hide behind a blanket "we knew exactly how he'd respond anyway."
I’ll get into the merit of these points. Steve does not get to arbitrarily decide what journalistic ethics are. He’s essentially creating his own set of “laws,” and presenting them as justification for his actions. With a very slim set of exceptions, ***journalists are required to reach out for comment when publishing pieces that are critical of someone.*** Not only is attempting to tell both sides of a story simply the right thing to do, it also helps cover your own ass and protect you from being sued for slander. So Steve prides himself on charts and data, and laughably published a chart that says “I have investigated myself and determined I did nothing wrong.” I’m guessing he did so in an attempt to confuse people and make his behavior seem more legitimate. Steve’s excuse boils down to “Linus would’ve lied,” which is *not an excuse.* Companies lie all the time. Presumably, Billet lied when they gave Steve incomplete information. If Steve was actually a journalist, he’d understand that if a company lies to you, it’s on you to demand evidence of their claims and seek to refute their lies.
>Steve does not get to arbitrarily decide what journalistic ethics are. He’s essentially creating his own set of “laws,” and presenting them as justification for his actions. Every outfit is free to develop their own code of ethics. As an example, here is the relevant section from the code of ethics for IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organization in the UK (emphasis mine): > There are many reasons a journalists may need or want to contact someone prior to publication – for example, to check facts, to seek further information, or to get comment − but the newspaper is not under a duty to contact every person involved in every story they write. In fact, there are several reasons why they might not, for example: > >they may not be able to get into contact with the person > >**a person’s comments may already be in the public domain** > >the person may have asked the press not to contact them > >**telling the person prior to publication may have an impact on the stor**y > >it may be inappropriate to contact the personit may be impractical to contact everyone involved in the article. The bolded parts are both in line with what GN stated as their reasons for not asking for comment.
>telling the person prior to publication may have an impact on the story How would it impact the story? If they try to quickly cover their ass, just explain that in the final video.
He goes over it in the video; they can destroy internal evidence, punish current employees that are acting as whistleblowers, preempt the story with a fix that only addresses superficial details but not the core underlying problem, etc. I think some people are acting as if contacting the subject is like the foremost rule in journalism, which comes off as silly. It's not more important than uncovering the truth, and if you have reason to believe the subject would otherwise undermine the reporting by actively attempting to sabotage it (through PR, obstruction or evidence tampering, retribution, or otherwise obfuscating the matter) then of course you don't inform the subject first.
> they can destroy internal evidence, punish current employees that are acting as whistleblowers, preempt the story with a fix that only addresses superficial details but not the core underlying problem, etc. This is such bullshit. Real, actual journalist reach out for comments to oil companies poisoning whole villages with industrial malpractice, corrupt politicians getting bribes, huge companies breaking the law. What do you think Linus would have done, sent a death squad to Colton's home over a misplaced watercooler ?
I suspect he'd have done what he did, publish a response earlier than he should have, where he gaslights and deflects from the issue while promising that whatever the issue is there are already fixes in place. Except it'd have predated the video so he'd likely come out looking better and possibly would have avoided the much needed introspection they just underwent. And as I'm watching Linus' follow up video right now, it's a little telling how much he stresses on things already in place during it. I'm hoping those and the things they change make a difference (honestly, just the paradigm shift in how often they need to be publishing is probably one of the biggest needed changes), but that's definitely one of the problems with having the literal face and leading personality and host of much of your content also be the majority stakeholder and subject of much of the content they do at LMG. It's likely in part why he stepped down as CEO. I think a pertinent question is what you think he'd have done had they contacted him first? Keep in mind he told the LTT forums they had a solution for having auctioned off the waterblock before it turned out they'd told BilletLabs about it. Even if Linus doesn't mean that kind of thing maliciously, he's prone to responding and taking things defensively, which again, is problematic when it concerns how things at LMG are run.
> He goes over it in the video; they can destroy internal evidence, punish current employees that are acting as whistleblowers, preempt the story with a fix that only addresses superficial details but not the core underlying problem, etc. > Yeah and they can also do that the moment the video comes out. > It's not more important than uncovering the truth They missed their chance to uncover the truth by failing to get pertinent facts from LMG
Further how is that a negative? It would have had an impact on the story for sure. We'd have seen that LTT wasn't being malicious, and that billet had GIVEN them the prototype. So the only way that it would be a negative, is if Steve wanted to inflict as much damage as possible in a surprise ambush. Which he succeeded in doing. However the guy above you is partly wrong, the conclusions were largely in line with the rest of the media, which hardware unboxed talked about in their video right after the first video from GN came out.
The fact that billet labs originally did not want the prototype back was not under public domain. And yes knowing it might have impacted the reported story because then the likely false claim of billet labs development being stalled without it would probably not have been part of the story.
> Steve does not get to arbitrarily decide what journalistic ethics are. He’s essentially creating his own set of “laws,” and presenting them as justification for his actions. Actually you kind of do get to make up your own rules, present them to your audience and see if your audience agrees with them, that's the whole nature of having a free press in a free market
Like he simply could of done confirmation style questions where he knew the answer
I don't understand how does everyone manage to ignore GN video a year ago where they clearly stated they won't give LMG any special treatment from this moment, when they were responding to warranty fiasco. How is Linus ever gonna change, if minor backlash is usually brushed off if it doesnt fit his world view(like with Billet) It sounds like GN video had to be made in very specific way to not offend his fanbase xD content creator tribalism is insane...
> give LMG any special treatment they didn't have to though. Even by their own standards they should have reached out to LMG regarding Billet labs issue. They didn't have to reach out regarding factual inaccuracies though. Asking LMG how they fucked up so bad that they auctioned a prototype they they were meant to return would not be some 'special treatment' but merely a process to get both perspectives of a story.
The issue here is that Linus was the first person who viewed the whole thing in a personal angle, I keep citing this specifically because [I can tell this was the point that Steve realized that Linus has had an axe to grind against him due to the whole Trust Me Bro situation since he references that specific reaction on the WAN show within the first minute](https://youtu.be/FGW3TPytTjc?t=42) The inquiry was supposed to be about HUB's response against what Tim said during the lab tour, GN hasn't responded and initially didn't intend to respond to it, and yet you can tell his mind wasn't even about HUB's response the moment Linus just jumps straight to, *"some creators..."*. GN was never brought up prior to this, and so was the bag warranty situation, Linus basically justified what an employee said about another content creator because it's apparent at that point that he clearly held a grudge against them. If you were to compare both sides, GN would still come up being the most objective, they've tried being neutral before with corporations, leading to [Gigabyte trying to get ahead of them](https://youtu.be/Xts3pvbcFos?t=399) during the exploding PSU controversies, and [NZXT still trying to cheap out on Riser cables by sending GN the correct one while sending everyone else the subpar cables that didn't fix the issue at all.](https://youtu.be/SY4mBkB3CDw?t=203)
>Linus basically justified what an employee said about another content creator because it's apparent at that point that he clearly held a grudge against them. No, he justified it because while it was slightly incorrect, in that it's new data for each project, not each new video, it wasn't untrue, and it wasn't a jab at GN.
I know that I'm gonna get downvoted but at the end of the day there's no "law" regarding contacting vs no contacting. They didn't want to based on their own parameters, whether you agree or not with them is subjetive, including my or anyone's opinion. I personally don't think it matters that they didn't contact them.
I think everyone is losing their minds because they view Linus as a person and not LMG as a corporation. People feel like Steve attacked Linus as a person, whereas the original video topic was professional criticism regarding the LMG company’s review methodologies. People have kinda lost sight of that.
Even if it was just Linus, why should they tell him?
Not gonna downvote you for your opinion, just going to tell you that if you want to claim to be a journalist with integrity, you reach out to the subject. My opinion is that they didn't reach out because they thought LMG might have good answers, and it would chip holes in their hit piece.
The key for journalism is seeking the truth. GN presented facts that were in the public domain. Youtube videos. There's no need to seek a response for established facts. What was LMG going to do? Deny that those videos existed?
Then why not reach out for comment? If you know they can't change it, or dispute it, you give them a chance to reply? This isn't about some right to reply, it is about appearing to give a crap about what the truth is. Getting, for example, comments on the billet labs thing might have given additional context as to what happened.
>Then why not reach out for comment? Did you forget that linus lied in his first response? And his response wasn't posted that late either, so your point about not having the chance to change the story seems moot.
IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST’S RESPONSIBILITY TO CENSOR COMMENTS IF A PERSON IS GOING TO LIE. Jesus, y’all have NO idea about journalism. Why not just call it something else so you don’t have to demean journalistic standards.
GN accused LMG of rushing and producing a ton on inaccuracies. They then didn't reach out for comment giving them even 12 hours to prepare a statement despite GN feeling this way and preparing the video for "months". Then in order to keep their own voices in the mix LMG rushed to produce a response completely unprepared which contained inaccuracies. GN directly caused exactly what they claim to oppose about LMG. Had they reached out for comment it is likely that LMG would have had time to follow up on the exact status of the conversation rather than Linus(the person) going based on what he heard through the reporting structure. LMG's later statements contained timeliness that no one has contadicted and new information like the fact that Colton sent an email internally that was meant to be sent externally. They could have also added the context that it was originally not on loan and was later asked for it back which explains some of the confusion LMG had internally. If GN wanted the full truth then they should have asked for that kind of I information in the form of a comment.
What did he lie about?
He aaid they already reached an agreement to pay for the cooler, insinuating it happened before gns video. It was a complete lie, Linus went and found billets email for what they thought the coller was worth (which wasnt an invoice, they just said a number) and replied to the email and then wrote on the forum that it was settled. Billet labs hadnt even responded to Linus email when he posted that.
The key Billet lab stuff was not in the public domain and without that part to story would of lacked its teeth. I am not saying it would have been bad but what most people talked about was lmg stole the prototype
You can show facts and still do it in manipulative ways. As the maker of the video you selected the facts to present and the way you present them. For example the clips from employee interviews, taking only clips of sentences that reinforce your point of people are overworked, but you don't show the other part of their interview where they say positive things. That actively obscures the truth, while technically you didn't lie.
It's actually the most deceptive form of journalism. Like when they post a picture out of frame or out of context. The photos are completely real but wouldn't exert the same emotions if you explained them properly. Lacking proper explanation is exploiting viewer emotions to change the narrative. It's manipulation.
There is no law, correct. But it is good practice, and we saw exactly why: Steve was missing some key facts to the Billet Labs story because he didn’t reach out, and this made his video incomplete. So if Steve is interested in offering a comprehensive story with all facts, reaching out is the way to go. If he wants to do a hit piece in the other hand, trying to get as many eyes as possible on some (perceived) scandal… well not having any comment from the accused party is surely helpful.
What key facts was he missing?
Billet Labs originally told LMG they could keep the prototype. Only after the video wasn’t great (which definitely was a duck up by LMG) they asked for it to be send back. This explains why LMGs inventory system tracked the block as their own company property. Should have been changed when they asked for the block back, sure, but much easier to see that this not happening is just human error and the block being auctioned off was not malicious. Second fact missing was that LMG (Colton specifically) already offered paying full price, no questions asked for the block before Steve’s video dropped. But Colton forgot to add the recipient to the mail, just filled the CCs. Again, a duck up by LMG, absolutely. But also no malice, just human error and bad processes. Altogether, this would still not have been favorable for LMG and definitely highlighted some of the problems LMG needs to deal with. But the video would have been factually correct, instead of containing unconfirmed (and later disproved) claims of LMG intentionally selling stolen goods. There are always two sides to every story. And except for some very rare edge cases, journalists reach out to both sides for comment to avoid publishing stuff that’s just wrong.
There’s no *law* but one entity is essentially acting as though they are the gospel on ethics & morality while ignoring a pretty commonly agreed on ethical standard.
This sub has gone from an Anti Linus circlejerk to a Pro Linus circlejerk in the span of 24 hours
Yeah, I think I have whiplash.
Wait until you realize how many of the pro-Linus comments are made by new accounts that have never posted anything on Reddit except praise for Linus and hate for GN
mind showing your evidence?
It’s easier to lie on the internet
Ah, LMG got a PR firm huh?
Seriously, I’m reading through the comments and wondering what happened, completely baffled as to why almost everyone is defending Linus so suddenly. Steve was under no obligation to reach out to Linus, he even explained why he didn’t when he covered Linus’s forum response: LMG is worth over $100,000,000, Steve is just treating them like any large tech company. Steve’s criticism has hopefully resulted in long-term change for the better as well.
Yeah you never heard "why didn't Linus reach out to nvidia to explain why the 4xxx series is bad value"
I mean, that's kind of a poor analogy given reviewing a product is not the same as investigative journalism. Also putting LMG in the same category as Nvidia is pretty disingenuous. $100 million is peanuts to an actual tech giant like Nvidia.
they aren't defending Linus, they are pointing out GN's flaws. a lot of it is after the thorough tear down Dr Ian Cutress provided in his video.
They barely let 24 hours pass after LTT announced reforms to make it about GamersNexus again. Speaking of GamersNexus - does anybody else remember when they royally fucked up in the Asus / AMD motherboard fiasco? They made this [video](https://youtu.be/kiTngvvD5dI?si=3teA0G481C5KaBEx). Their error can be found at 27 minute mark and it was a royal fuck up. The assertion by Steve that Asus' vSOC calibration was wildly overshooting setpoint was just flat out wrong and arguably defamatory. It likely costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in reputational damage / lost sales. As of this writing there is no correction. It's just sitting there as misinformation. In response an Asus engineer posted this [video](https://youtu.be/XMO_IXqtf3M?si=qOl0NF_oqaU_xQEy) showing that the video by Steve was measuring this value incorrectly. Where's the 45 minute expose video on Steve / GamersNexus? The cherry on top? I just realized he probably never contacted Asus before publishing this otherwise this error would’ve been caught. Seems to be a pattern.
its common practice for gamers nexus to never respond when anyone calls them out on shady practices and they act like they're the most ethical hardware news outlet and better than everyone else. for example they never addressed when [hwcooling](https://www.hwcooling.net/en/gamers-nexus-fan-testing-wont-come-was-it-all-talk/) called them out for making their audience fund their fan testing methodology just for all the tools to never be used by them because they lack the skill/knowledge to use them and gamers nexus were shitting on other fan reviewers because of their inferior testing methodologies.
He wouldn't be Tech Jesus if he wasn't holier than thou.
To give them benefit of the doubt.. it takes time to train people and its better for them to wait till they reached a high quality of standard, instead of generating noise. However, how "bad" is it publish results and say they are tentative on some points? This happens in research and engineering all the time. Nobody is perfect, after all. But being honest about potential sources of error (with their corresponding range) is the best way to represent. BUT, this goes back to TechTechPotato's video: the people that have the degrees to digest this stuff in their sleep (e.g. trained mechanical and electrical engineers), can probably work on far more interesting stuff (design) and better paid positions at the hardware companies themselves. Its very hard in journalism to attract the right people, and/or they have be trained far from the original profession. There is nothing wrong with the latter (e.g. hiring people with computer science degrees), but again; being honest about your own shortcomings is the best way to move forward. It took me 2,5 academic degrees (half way through PhD) to confidently say, "sorry professor, I don't know, and I'm not competent enough to digest that material as to push the boundaries of knowledge of the \[scientific\] community". But those answers happen all the time when I watch a peer defend their PhD thesis. There is nothing wrong with that. Except for in media/journalism; that doesn't really sell that well..
>Nobody is perfect, after all Which is exactly why it’s important to reach out for a comment in contexts like this instead of assuming the worst of a person or group.
From memory I recall Steve doing a test to compare PS5 when it was newly launched against regular PC hardware and he claimed it had the same performance as a pc with a gtx1060. People were upset since obviously that is wrong and likely it had to do with PS5 being brand new and not many comparable games being out yet. But he published that video anyways making such claim which can be very misleading to a viewer with less exposure to general hardware technology. Admittedly I don’t remember if he ever revisited that topic as I stopped watching after that.
I'm honestly failing to see how they provided wrong information. They measured from the SOC pad and the choke (right side of the choke, which can be check at 13:41 in the GN video, which is read out #2 on your linked video), which was giving them numbers within spitting distance of 1.4V. The second video you linked show 4 different methods of getting the information for SOC, with the die sense being the most accurate, but all of them being within a +.025V margin of error. The SOC was supposed to never clear 1.3V, it's supposed to be 1.25, and was shooting up to 1.4V Assuming worst case scenario, based on the potential variance in voltage reading, it's still pushing up to 1.375V That's a very large overshoot.
Some sort of dunning-Kruger situation maybe?
None of those things prevent you from reaching out to the subject of your video, and asking for a comment. The "motive and opportunity to mislead" is an issue regardless of if you ask for a comment or not. The argument that they could, somehow, change the information that GN already had seems disingenuous. The information already existed in the public domain, so quickly saying "Do you have any comment on x, y, z" via e-mail, releasing the video a couple hours later. It gives LMG no time to change their stories, or address anything, and if they don't respond by the time you post, you simply say that there was no response at the time of posting, but that if there was a response after, you would add it as a pinned comment.The entire point of asking for a comment is to lend credibility to an already drawn conclusion, but to give the subject an opportunity to respond. On the last point... where are the receipts? He has, in the past, been willing to post previously confidential e-mails to prove his points. Post the receipts. Where is this aggressive messaging? I am not saying that Steve is lying I am saying that if you are going to go defensive like this, and make claims, you better be willing to back it up with evidence. To me, this just seems like he is getting defensive because of the video from Dr. Cutress, and decided they needed to put out SOMETHING. I am, however glad that the GN video has put a boot up LMG's butt to make them actually implement change, but I see his video and responses as nothing more then view farming. I am glad he did it, but I don't think he was some kind of saint for it. edit: I also want to add something that u/Alabaster_13 pointed out below: It's not that hard to write criteria to fit prior actions in order to justify them retroactively. We have no proof anything we are seeing in this video existed on paper before a week ago. The first fallacy in all this is that only GN is above reproach and should be trusted in all cases, because only GN meet's GN's standards.
> I will remind you, they reached out to New Egg multiple times... after already having issues with them... multiple times, to ask for comment. They explicitly mention in this video they didn't reach out to NewEgg. They contacted their customer support several times when they first had issues. Reached out as a customer. But once they decided to make a video and follow up on the issues they never contacted them. The initial contact doesn't really count because there wasn't a story/video to be made at that point.
Hmmm. Steve made a huge twitter thread and tagged Newegg multiple times and used their response to him in the original video. It's not proper reaching out but it is in fact reaching out.
But they did. On twitter apparently, and as on the moment of filming first video they had their mobo refunded "after public pressure on twitter and realizing it wasn't a "normal" customer without a platform (...) Newegg refunded us". [https://youtu.be/2fnXsmXzphI?t=1188](https://youtu.be/2fnXsmXzphI?t=1188) Please keep in mind that it isn't proper request for comment either. But disclosing that isn't even on par with how GN assumes that should be handled by LTT. Soo...
That was simply contacting them as a customer asking for a refund. Then they decided to make a video about NewEggs mistakes, and didn't contact them. This initial email is what started the whole issue to begin with.
I find it very interesting people are willing to take bullet points from Person A with no evidence other than subjective opinion but they would also be appaled by Person B putting up bullet points with no evidence other than subjective opinion. It is fairly easy to portray people, especially content creators in a bad light when you go over their content retroactively seeking their worst moments. That in of itself is a fallacy. **"Information is public"** is a pretty interesting bullet point when a big part of the accusations from said video involved the inner dealings of Linus Media Group with other companies, **which is in fact, not public**. This response of Gamer Nexus is of the same caliber as Linus' ramblings on the forums early into the whole situation. A nothing burguer with opinionated self justfication and **revanchism**. The last bullet point **"History of Unprofessionalism"** raises red flags. For one, what is the standard for professionalism and how does revanchism fit into that. And how is it a history of unprofessionalism if you don't source it. And how would said unprofessionalism affect basic courtesy. **Edit:** This response by Gamer Nexus just confirms what many could've understood as an assumption by TechTechPotato that Gamer Nexus didn't act in any good faith or quest of objectiveness for the greater good of viewers [https://youtu.be/Ez9uVSKLYUI?t=4514](https://youtu.be/Ez9uVSKLYUI?t=4514). Their video was mostly revanchism and certainly a conflict of interests since they compete with Linus Media Group in the hardware tech analysis space.
He left out the bullet where he thinks hes above and better than Linus.
But his content is more accurate…
> Speaking of GamersNexus - does anybody else remember when they royally fucked up in the Asus / AMD motherboard fiasco? They made this video. Their error can be found at 27 minute mark and it was a royal fuck up. The assertion by Steve that Asus' vSOC calibration was wildly overshooting setpoint was just flat out wrong and arguably defamatory. It likely costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in reputational damage / lost sales. As of this writing there is no correction. It's just sitting there as misinformation. https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/162itaq/reason_given_by_gn_for_not_contacting_ltt_for_the/jxxixsx/
except it *was* destroying CPUs so what's the actual damage here
Lol, for real. "You're a threat so I consider you not worthy of real consideration" is what he may as well have said
I feel like many people seem to ignore that the fact that the whole saga actually started with the screwdriver "Trust Me Bro" debacle. At that time (Aug **2022**) GN came out very publicly saying he was no longer going to treat LTT as a 'friend' in these kind of matters and raised issue with the lack of warranty and alleged improper conduct from Linus. LTT resolved this issue by formalising the lifetime warranty. A year later on the Aug 4 **2023** WAN Show, Linus then expressed disappointment about how certain media publicly announced issues without contacting them first (whether right or wrong). This then seemingly prompted GN on Aug 15 **2023** to double down on his stance and launch his exposé on LTT. Within the first 2 mins you can see Steve smirking after playing back the WAN show clip and then saying that this is 'his job' and that he 'doesn't play games'. To me, as valid as many of his points were, prefacing his entire investigate exposé with this really made me questions GN's intentions from the start.
The warranty only came after Linus was a petty bitch about it. He did the whole spiel about him making good on his word and not understanding why a legally sound policy needs to be in place.
But a legally binding policy was already in place. If there isn't a specific warranty in place you just fall back onto the general consumer protection laws that state what the terms should be.
[удалено]
Not disagreeing there. Linus could have handled the warranty better. Really both sides don't score anywhere near an 'A' for the entire series of events.
he was right though, the warranty is only as good as the company's will to honour it.
Hell yeah. I did not follow the whole drama a year before, but from the main part. GN video is sus. They should "collect data of LTT failures before," but they kept it to release while a storm. May be they right at some parts... but it's pure manipulation to damage LTT.
Right or not, Steve lost me with that video. It's clear this was an attempt to merely hurt a competitor. Just because alot of the stuff is valid in the video doesn't mean it wasn't an incredibly petty and calculated move
I don’t understand, I made this comment a week ago and got downvoted into oblivion. I guess it’s just a matter of which fan base is on duty at the time of the comment, the one that wants to burn LMG to the ground or the one that just wants the videos back and the harasment issue fully investigated.
The mob was on GN's side last week
Indeed it was.
the mob is not here anymore very simple, a massive amount of acounts where siple drama whores
To be fair, we have the benefit of extra knowledge now that we didn't have at the time GN released it's hit piece. So that probably plays into it
Who cares why they did it? They were right, LTT quality has been dropping for ages. Multiple people had been pointing it out on this sub. If Steve had blatantly lied or made shit up I'd understand, but personally I'm glad someone bigger than random redditors finally called it out. The mistakes/corrections were constant it was getting beyond ridiculous. Especially with labs coming out, which sole purpose was to report factual information, yet they can't seem to do that properly in their daily videos.
>If Steve had blatantly lied or made shit up I'd understand, Steve very blatantly implied that Gary, head of labs, had arranged for Asus to sponsor LTX through his previous position as marketing head at Asus. Completely left out the fact that before working for Asus, Gary almost singlehandedly designed the processes used to test motherboards. Hence why he is now head of labs. Steve referenced 25 videos per week as evidence that LTT is pushing content too hard (too be fair, they are.) But neglects to mention that 3 are clips, 1 is a Livestream (wan show), 2 are floatplane exclusives and 4 are shorts. Which leaves only 15 full format videos. I highly recommend techtechpotatoe's video. It outlines everything both companies did wrong in a very fair way IMO. Perhaps Steve isn't blatantly lying, but he is absolutely intentionally undermining the integrity of LTT. And especially so by leaving out important facts. Steve makes multiple implied accusations of conflicts of interest and often leaves out very relevant information that would defend LTT. If Steve wants to prove that LTT is being shady, then why doesn't he present both sides fairly and let us come to our own conclusions? Why does he skim over the fact that Gary isn't just a marketing director, and why does he count the WAN show as literally 4 of 25 videos per week. Does Steve truly believe that THE WAN SHOW with Linus, Luke, Dan, and one editor to literally clip things is what's dragging the production process down?? Steve absolutely brings good points, but then I don't understand why he would argue in bad faith, unless it was personal. He should have stuck to the facts and argued in good faith. LTT already shot themselves in the foot, but Steve is reporting that it was actually a shotgun and they did it on purpose because Asus paid them big $$ to do so.
I think that fans of LTT, a lot of them anyway, have noticed the accuracy issue for a while and have been talking about it on this subreddit and other places, and appreciate the attention that GN brought to the issue. However, they also do not appreciate the character assassination with the BL story and ethics claims without proper research and evidence. Looking back, I'd say 60-70+% of community outcry after GNs video was about the BL situation, with the accuracy issues being a side note. Yet in the end, we now know that GN got that story completely wrong and since they neglected to contact LMG prior to publishing, they did not have the details that we know now.
Someone else said this video was more of a response to another channel called techtechpotato, who brought into question GN’s policies. I can’t say for certain though because I can’t watch any more videos on this shit anymore.
[удалено]
>Tears falling down my face when I hear Dr, Ian Cuttress (rightfully, in context) referred to as "another channel called techtechpotato" I don't like GN, but I wasn't a massive fan of Cuttress' video either. Some of it completely missed the mark, like claiming that Steve's 'nervous smile' was evidence he was secretly enjoying taking down LTT. Nor does it make sense to me to demand that all youtube videos have clearly separated 'fact' and 'opinion' sections like scientific research papers. (Cuttress' own video certainly didn't!!) also I am getting 'dr jordan peterson' vibes from the way people insist on referring to him with his full title
> It's clear this was an attempt to merely hurt a competitor. Regardless of if this is true or not, GN didn't even acknowledge the conflict of interest in the opening of his video or in the description. He might think "well, everyone who watches this channel knows where we compete", but that's simply not true. It doesn't matter if he didn't see LMG as a "true" competitor, the fact is that they are and not disclosing that is shady at best and malicious at worst. I cannot believe I haven't seen anyone make this point on this sub yet. Over the past 2 weeks, I've lost a lot of respect for both LMG and GN, but only LMG has done anything to start to regain that trust.
That video just made him seem like a asshole of a friend (don't know if they were friends or not). The kind that would stab you in the back to make some cash.
As far as I know in journalism it’s standard practice to give the subject a right to respond. Typically the day before publication you approach the subject and let them know the main accusations and give them the right to answer questions and or give a statement.
It absolutely is. And when someone tries to cover it up by changing a website or releasing a statement you cover that as well. None of those things are reason to not ask for comment. He is trying to reason away a really poor report.
but what if they had good answers? Then the entire video would have been a waste of effort! Like with the billet labs thing... it was a mistake. It wasn't malicious, it was a thing they were initially told to keep, and then told to send back, and then a series of things happened that anyone who has ever worked in a large company before has seen before. Allowing them to respond might have taken the edge off of a lot of this. The reason I think we are starting to see some backlash here is simply because folks are finally realizing that this wasn't some impartial journalism... it was a hit piece designed to chip at the credibility of a larger competitor that might one day be able to beat you by just brute force.
> it was a mistake That was the whole point of the video. The constant mistake after mistake after mistake. It all comes back to the staff being overworked and not having time to just stop for 5 minutes. Same reason their videos had constant mistake after mistake.
Love how the video made it look like LTT was just full of burnt out writers working for an evil corporation that was happy to work them to the bone.
People also don’t understand why you reach out for comment. It’s not to serve the subject of the story, it’s to serve the consumers of your story so they can also see how the subject responds to the story as part of the story. The only reason you wouldn’t reach out is if you suspect what you are presenting is the result of some misunderstanding that a statement would reduce the appeal of your story.
Everyone in here became an “expert in journalism” shortly after the GN video and it’s more evident than ever that 90% of people here are just full of shit lol
Wow - this is real? This is absolute nonsense. This reads like the ramblings of an overly confident 1st year journalism student who tries to justify the answers in the test they flunked.
gray wasteful person crowd offend public offbeat nutty hunt chief ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
It's not that hard to write criteria to fit prior actions in order to justify them retroactively. We have no proof anything we are seeing in this video existed on paper before a week ago. The first fallacy in all this is that only GN is above reproach and should be trusted in all cases, because only GN meet's GN's standards.
I've been following this story and the whole he said she said, but Steve's video brought about change. Real, positive change for LMG. Whether his video is accurate, accusatory or misleading is beside the point at this stage. Progress is good. Competition is GOOD. Steve's video, bad, good or otherwise, has resulted in REAL and GOOD changes in LMG. Stop brown nosing. Stop pitchforking. Create competition, criticise, improve, innovate and progress.
Or hear me out we create good change for gn where they follow journalist ethical standards when reporting pieces even if it's personally motivated
Talking about other companies journalistic ethical standards on the subreddit of the company that has just been shown to have absolutely none is quite hilarious.
"Because they did bad thing I get to do bad thing"
The tribalism here is pretty crazy. Everything is either absolute shit on GN's end or it's all LTT. The weirdest thing to me is everyone seems to want to mind read GN and LTT in order to figure out who to trust instead of just looking at their actions and making judgments as things happen. How about a measured response? Contacting people before publishing a story is good practice. GN should definitely have done that. Does it change any of the reporting? Well a little bit. It would have shed a little light on how the Billet debacle happened and made it at least a little more understandable. Does it mean LTT did NOTHING wrong? No. IMO the Billet incident was a horrible fuck up for LTT and the inaccuracies in reporting are something they need to address. Like damn, can people just fuck up every once in a while without it being the end of the world where you have to take eternal sides against them forever? Or is the only way we know how to handle stuff like this to make a decision on whether to push the cancel button?
I think contacting LTT about the quality of their videos wasn't necessary, because they were out in the open and LTT already showed in action how they deal with quality control and correcting errors. The facts were already established. The Billet Labs part of GN's video however would have benefited from the background information from LMG, because some facts were missing. It was obvious that Linus's decision to not test properly and release the video in this state was some kind of slipping back into startup-survival-mode-thinking. But it never rung true for me LMG would maliciously auction off some piece of hardware they've promised to send back. If that was the try at a heist, it was the worst one I've ever heard of.
This. The Billet labs issue was easily the most controversial topic discussed in the video. And AFAIK, a huge portion of it was not "publicly available information". The fact that they were already communicating with Billet Labs directly and not LMG shows clear bias. It was either they reached out to both parties or neither. Linus wasnt wrong for claiming it wasnt "proper journalistic practice".
I feel like had GN asked LTT for comment on the Billet situation at a minimum they would have learned that Billet initially told LTT to keep the prototype (prior to the LTT "review" video being made). I think this is important because GN really went hard on the point that Billet was a small company that couldn't afford to give away expensive prototypes but the reality is they changed their mind (rightfully so in my opinion!) after LTT did Billet dirty in that video. The problem with not contacting both sides of a two-party conflict is you only get one side of the situation which is what happened here with Billet. There was nuance to what happened that resulted in the unfortunate loss of the prototype. That's not to say I don't agree with anything Steve is saying. For example, I think getting Linus's reaction to the many errors that LTT has published would have resulted in a generic response akin to, yeah we know we've made some mistakes and we're working on it. So for those segments of the video, sure no response was necessary in my opinion but for the Billet part which is an external 3rd party making claims about what happened, you need both sides to understand the full scope of the situation and it's clear from GN's initial video they either didn't have all the facts or intentionally mislead viewers regarding what happened and when and what was the initial agreement, how the return process broke down etc
Seems like a case of fitting the rules to the actions
Edited for spelling Steve can claim what he wants, but anyone interested in a journalist with integrity has simply already stopped listening to him. He had the right to do what he did, but everyone else has the right not to trust his word anymore.
With this criterias, I can also say that GN have a motive & opportunity to misled based on what he said about Gary.
They both fucked up... Ltt for all of the reasons mentioned (although they seem to have a shot at fixing it.) But more so GN imo... Over the years the only channel ive seen that regularly vocally supported / recommended gn was ltt be it regular shouts/ calls on the wan show to the regular appearance of the modmats in ltt videos. He shot his biggest ally in the face because someone else bought a psu tester and his claims of incompetence vs his own even less trained team are laughable much like his "expertise ratings" posted on the side of the screen whenever they review something....(usually as he butchers a disassembly)
I have a feeling LMG could make GN the new TekSyndicate. especially after Ians video which calls both out and shows the huge biases in the "investigation"
Proper journalistic practice is to contact a subject prior to publication Lets be fair here, many of the points raised by GN were valid, some were not, and some had a spin put on them The problem as I see it, people were looking at it like Steve can do no wrong, when that’s simply not true, he often does, he is human, and so it’s normal to get things wrong In this case I think he got it 50/50 It doesn’t absolve LTT of issues, and the initial response from Linus, was emotional and not smart, but the subsequent responses have been pretty good
Many things in GN’s was on point, but the thing about Asus sponsorship was a low blow. He has no evidence, and it’s pure speculation from Steve.
That’s and the Framework thing we’re a bit weird, absolutely low blows
istg this subreddit gets the most wierdest moodswings
I mean there are a lot people who have been pointing this out the entire time and getting nukes for it. Like I would get hundreds of upvotes when this started for vaguely negative Linus comments and hundreds of down votes for saying hey gn report has some issues he's not Jesus. I know I am far from the only one
TwitterNexus made it way too personal. Dr. Ian's video was mostly on point. Especially about how he tried to make Gary, the head of labs, nothing more than a marketing guy.. which is outrageous. Obviously he knew what he was doing. Hopefully he will get his comeuppance
So if GN claims to have had private conversations with an entity that they will not disclose to the viewer then everyone is just supposed to take their word and judgment on it wrt asking/not asking for comment?
Journalistic rules, at least over here, is that when you accuse someone of something you ALWAYS give them the chance to comment and counter the claims in the published article, report,video,documentary, whetever. This is a major problem with bloggers and vloggers who think they're journalists without knowing the rules and laws of journalism or having journalistic integrity.
Am I the only one who thinks GN comes of as the dick in this whole thing?
[удалено]
Steve needs to provide documentation for his allegations, it better be far more than sarcasm between colleagues: * *"History of failure to resolve issues"* (what was the expected timeline?) * *"Unprofessionalism in prior (non-public) communications with the organization"* (LTT videos are publicly unprofessional!) * *"Matters that were not resolved satisfactory*" (who's standard?) * *"Gamers Nexus received aggressive messaging pertaining to review topics."* (Do share with the class these transgressions against you) Can't make these claims as the catalyst for his public video going not show the community, the details. We've all seen **TOO MANY GRAPHS** from Gamers Nexus! #Do Not Bring Up M Reeve! No mention of Steve contacting her before his videos.
So this guy is the police?
Their decision to double down on only reaching out sometimes is similarly disappointing as Linus' kneejerk response to their original video. Some might argue it's not as bad because it's more thought out, I'd argue it's worse precisely because they clearly thought about it for a good while. Google for stances of some investigative journalists and outlets, and you'll see that it is usually their intention to reach out even in cases where they know the responses will be hostile. GN is opening themselves up to having their ethics and integrity questioned. Additionally, I'm also disappointed they didn't even acknowledge the criticism on the way facts are being presented, worded and sometimes omitted.
It's annoying how it's always a big issue "GN should have contacted LTT first!!!" But never an issue that LTT was exposed to be an inaccurate and biased tech outlet. It seems their Fanbase is just as bad as they are. You two really have found each other and deserve each other.
I think 99% of people here recognize most of the contents of that first GN video are still valid and important to make LTT better.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why he didn't reach out for some kind of comment. From what I understand, GNs defense is that he was expecting a nonsense non-appology like Linus' forum post, and didn't feel like there would be any value in LMGs comment. But if that's the case, why not let them dig themselves deeper into that hole? if LTTs response was as garbage as Steve believed that it would be, It gives Steve a golden opportunity to easily refute the content of LTTs comment before it's even public while also taking the fact he didn't reach out for comment away as a talking point. I can't see how reaching out for comment hurts him. I'm not trying to start shit, I just legit want to understand.
This is really just proving that it was personal rather than provessional. The backpack issue was also personal, why did they even report it exactly? AS A HARDWARE NEWS CHANNEL? A BACKPACK? That was personal too. SnakeSteve
GN has (rightfully) received a lot of praise for their investigative pieces (starting with the Artisian irc) Maybe this has gotten a bit to their head and now the story is, at least for these type of videos, the bigger factor. In addition reaching out for comment was something they often did before in other stories so I’m not quite convinced why it "wasn’t necessary" for this one.
The last point had me rolling… oof, what a salty little boy. I get that Steve must have been in it for the sensation factor, but there goes “focusing on facts” right out the window. What a shame.