Tech Youtubers accused of not disclosing Computex Sponsorships

[rcmaehl]

Sources: PaulsHardware, JayzTwoCents, BitWit Kyle

Quote

Basically a gaint bullseye written on the entire tech youtuber genre with a big <explict> bullseye written on there claiming that myself, Kyle, Paul, HardwareCanucks, GamersNexus, and LinusTechTips [sic]. Apparently we charge money to go to these trade shows and to go to your booth.

 

Several Tech Youtubers including the following Twitter Handles:

 

@LinusTech

@hardwarecanucks

@teksyndicate

@GamersNexus

@bitwitkyle

@paulhardware

@JayzTwoCents

@ScienceStudioYT

@OC3D

@HardwareUnboxed

 

Were accused of not properly disclosing their business practices. Specifically stating that those Youtubers charged money to visit a booth and to create videos and other content.  So far PaulsHardware and JayzTwoCents have refuted such claims and there are rumors of a Lawsuit from GamersNexus. However, best of all Kyle has dropped some sick beats and it's amazing! 

 

Personally, I doubt any of them have actually done so, but time will tell.

 

- RC

[Guest]

I don't follow the other channels but Linus and Jay are pretty transparent. I'm pretty sure the companies wouldn't pay for them to visit their booth, it's more like sponsorships. Not really the same thing. Teksyndicate had a comment on Jays video on how that really works as well. 

[TheSLSAMG]

NZXT has also confirmed that they never paid any of the mentioned creators for a booth visit.

 

[Canada EH]

Well people all the time file frivelous lawsuits for meaningless things.

Also I wouldnt be suprised if they were sponsored, they want the money so theres that.

[TheSLSAMG]

5 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

Well people all the time file frivelous lawsuits for meaningless things.

Also I wouldnt be suprised if they were sponsored, they want the money so theres that.

It's absolutely not frivolous if someone is making libelous claims about you and it's getting published in news outlets (VideoCardz reported on it, prompting GamersNexus to sic their lawyer, not to mention HardOCP is entertaining these claims on Twitter.)

 

Also, sponsorships and being paid for booth visits are different things, and all sponsorships for the Computex trip were disclosed by the named YouTubers.

[3 Lions]

Laughable.

[Sacredsock]

Just watched Jay's latest vid, in that he totally refutes this and does talk through his revenue streams.

He also mentions legal action and proceedings.

 

Honestly I don't think that any of the vendors would be so short sighted to 'bribe' or should i say 'buy' reviews.

 

[goodtofufriday]

So who exactly are doing the accusing???

[Christophe Corazza]

We have the basic principle that it's up to the accuser to prove the accused guilty, not the other way around.

[TheSLSAMG]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

So who exactly are doing the accusing???

 

This guy, he set his Twitter account to "Protected" now (probably because of all of the backlash.)

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, TheSLSAMG said:

-snip picture-

 

This guy, he set his Twitter account to "Protected" now (probably because of all of the backlash.)

So this dude that no one knows just says this and doesnt have any proof? Why is this even being taken seriously.

[3 Lions]

2 minutes ago, TheSLSAMG said:

This guy, he set his Twitter account to "Protected" now (probably because of all of the backlash.)

Oh no it's not because of that, it's because he can't face the truth or won't face the truth.

 

The truth never lies...

[Sacredsock]

3 minutes ago, Christophe Corazza said:

We have the basic principle that it's up to the accuser to prove the accused guilty, not the other way around.

Very true, however it is also wrong to falsely accuse. and if that happens then the accused person (or company) should have the right to some form of compensation. 

[TheSLSAMG]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

So this dude that no one knows just says this and doesnt have any proof? Why is this even being taken seriously.

He claimed to have "proof" about this, but obviously we can't see shit. VideoCardz also picked up the story, and plenty of people read them so I can't imagine this hasn't done any damage.

[3 Lions]

1 minute ago, TheSLSAMG said:

He claimed to have "proof" about this, but obviously we can't see shit.

Ha. always the same with these sort of people, however when they are proved wrong (which this guy clearly is) they run for the hills. 

[Biggerboot]

8 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

So this dude that no one knows just says this and doesnt have any proof? Why is this even being taken seriously.

Maybe he had a booth at computex and was jelly.  Who knows?

[goodtofufriday]

7 minutes ago, TheSLSAMG said:

He claimed to have "proof" about this, but obviously we can't see shit. VideoCardz also picked up the story, and plenty of people read them so I can't imagine this hasn't done any damage.

 

3 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

Maybe he had a booth at computex and was jelly.  Who knows?

Im smellin some lawsuits against this guy for defamation comin in.

[DezGalbie]

It seems like this guy has just made an assumption and published it in an attempt to make himself seem knowledgeable of or majorly involved in the industry. And it's wrong to make false accusations of course.

But - why is everyone making out that the people named are being slandered in some heinous kind of way? What is actually wrong with the act which they are being accused of? He is not accusing them of giving favourable reviews to undeserving products in return for payment (i.e. lying), he is not accusing them of accepting bribes to win a contract etc

He is accusing them of accepting payment to come and visit their booth at an event (and arguably the implication is that it would be featured on Youtube, although that is not explicit in the claim). What is inherently wrong with that? It's like paying for advertising. Everyone needs to chill out with their legal threats, and people need to stop making shit up to look important.

[TheSLSAMG]

Another update: An Alphacool rep has also denied paying for coverage.

 

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

13 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

So this dude that no one knows just says this and doesnt have any proof? Why is this even being taken seriously.

This is the age where any sexual misconduct allegations on Twitter are automatically treated as truth anyways. Unless video evidence is attached to the tweet (even then, is it trustworthy?), 140 characters is quite tight for a claim and enough supporting evidence.

[Maticks]

They might well pay to fly a team there but we know that from the advertising in video.

But also we've seen gamersnexus and Linus Tech be sent products if they are shit they say they are. You can't buy a positive review. So what's the issue? 

[LinusTech]

We've already had someone cancel his/her floatplane membership over these allegations. 

 

It's amazing how damaging this kind of thing can be. 

 

Might have to do a stream tomorrow... 

[TheSLSAMG]

Just now, DezGalbie said:

It seems like this guy has just made an assumption and published it in an attempt to make himself seem knowledgeable of or majorly involved in the industry. And it's wrong to make false accusations of course.

But - why is everyone making out that the people named are being slandered in some heinous kind of way? What is actually wrong with the act which they are being accused of? He is not accusing them of giving favourable reviews to undeserving products in return for payment (i.e. lying), he is not accusing them of accepting bribes to win a contract etc

He is accusing them of accepting payment to come and visit their booth at an event and feature it on their Youtube vid. What is inherently wrong with that? It's like paying for advertising. Everyone needs to chill out with their legal threats, and people need to stop making shit up to look important.

He accused them of breaking laws (in the US, FTC rules dictate that content creators must disclose sponsored and paid content) and being dishonest with no evidence, and then claimed to have evidence. It's not as simple as someone saying they dislike the named YouTubers, they made false claims that could potentially hurt business. You are right in saying that it is like paying for advertising, but there are laws and guidelines that dictate how advertising is done and this guy is essentially claiming that they didn't do that.

 

Just now, LinusTech said:

We've already had someone cancel his/her floatplane membership over these allegations. 

 

It's amazing how damaging this kind of thing can be. 

 

Might have to do a stream tomorrow... 

There you go, this is why it's a problem. It's absolutely not nothing.

[Sacredsock]

2 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

We've already had someone cancel his/her floatplane membership over these allegations. 

 

It's amazing how damaging this kind of thing can be. 

 

Might have to do a stream tomorrow... 

might need Jon to answer this one, but is it anyway to do a group lawsuit against a single person? defamation, loss of earnings etc

[DezGalbie]

3 minutes ago, TheSLSAMG said:

He accused them of breaking laws (in the US, FTC rules dictate that content creators must disclose sponsored and paid content) and being dishonest with no evidence, and then claimed to have evidence. It's not as simple as someone saying they dislike the named YouTubers, they made false claims that could potentially hurt business. You are right in saying that it is like paying for advertising, but there are laws and guidelines that dictate how advertising is done and this guy is essentially claiming that they didn't do that.

 

There you go, this is why it's a problem. It's absolutely not nothing.

I didn't say it was as simple as someone saying they dislike the named Youtubers, and I didn't say it was nothing.

I said that there was nothing inherently wrong with accepting payment to visit a booth at an event.

And - it would only count as advertising if it was part of the agreement that the visit would be recorded and published somewhere, wouldn't it? That wasn't part of the accusation as far as I can tell. So nobody is being accused of breaking "laws and guidelines that dictate how advertising is done". People are being accused of accepting payment to visit a booth. Period. There is nothing wrong with that, is there?

If people want to stop supporting these Youtubers because of this accusation then that's up to them, but it makes no sense to do so on the basis of such an innocuous claim.

Yes, it is wrong to make false accusations. But some accusations are more harmful than others. If someone claims I am a rapist then I would get the lawyers in. If someone claimed I had a purple dog I would just point out the silliness of their claim. This accusation about these Youtubers is much more akin to the purple dog claim. It should be shown to be silly and then everyone moves on.