Tech Youtubers accused of not disclosing Computex Sponsorships

[Derangel]

49 minutes ago, it_dont_work said:

Bloke admits liability for defamation publicly? In the legal system we generally used to call those people fucking idiots. 

He's probably not the one being sued. I imagine Jay and anyone else filing a lawsuit will either go after Videocardz or the original source.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, Derangel said:

He's probably not the one being sued. I imagine Jay and anyone else filing a lawsuit will either go after Videocardz or the original source.

No doubt that OG source will be priority. But he will still play a big part of the suit. First fired followed by suit against Videocardz and then they sue him. Hes not getting off easy. 

[ARikozuM]

Fractal Josh gets to rent luxury vehicles, so what does it take to get him to come out to a booth? A goddamn cruise ship with legs? 

 

Spoiler

 

Let's not give Josh ideas. 

 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Let's not give Josh ideas.

 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

What's that from?

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

What's that from?

Icewind Dale. The Caverns of Mul'Dnath. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

If it werent for the price I would definitely get one of those Dysons as the actually work.

Not if you don't use it 

 

[8uhbbhu8]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Not if you don't use it 

 

That's your problem,  not mine  

[DezGalbie]

15 hours ago, inthebrilliantblue said:

Do you own a business? Because if you did you would understand the implications of being slandered in such a way, even if it was "silly".

I don't think it's me that's misunderstanding here. It seems to be you that's misunderstanding what slander means. For it to be slander the accusation would have to be portraying the accused in certain way. The action which they are being accused of would need to be immoral or illegal or undesirable in some way.

 

The accusation being made here is that the YouTubers accepted payment to visit a booth at an event. What is so evil or immoral about that? (Bearing in mind that the accusation IS NOT that they accepted payment for favourable reviews or anything of the sort).

 

What we have here is an action which is entirely neutral in terms of legality, morality, and ethics. Just like the owning of a purple dog.

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

I don't think it's me that's misunderstanding here. It seems to be you that's misunderstanding what slander means. For it to be slander the accusation would have to be portraying the accused in certain way. The action which they are being accused of would need to be immoral or illegal or undesirable in some way.

 

The accusation being made here is that the YouTubers accepted payment to visit a booth at an event. What is so evil or immoral about that? (Bearing in mind that the accusation IS NOT that they accepted payment for favourable reviews or anything of the sort).

 

What we have here is an action which is entirely neutral in terms of legality, morality, and ethics. Just like the owning of a purple dog.

Slander actually only needs to hurt the accused reputation not just be an accusation of crime. By making a false statement, an accusation, about a person or a company that is incorrect and damages their reputation that is slander and you can be legally challenged with potential damages sort.

 

Also what we are actually dealing with is defamation not slander, slander is spoken and defamation is written.

 

Libel laws are not as simple as owning a purple dog and morality and ethics are heavily taken in to account, because if you are a foundation that believes owning a purple dog is immoral then accusing a member of that foundation of owning a purple dog is either defamation or slander if you write it or say it edit: and it not be true.

 

Edit:

Also neither is it a requirement of the accuser to think what they are accusing is immoral or would consider slander or defamation, you are not the plaintiff and it is not for you to show the damages sort.

[DezGalbie]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Slander actually only needs to hurt the accused reputation not just be an accusation of crime. By making a false statement, an accusation, about a person or a company that is incorrect and damages their reputation that is slander you can be legally challenged with potential damages sort.

 

Also what we are actually dealing with is defamation not slander, slander is spoken and defamation is written.

 

Libel laws are not as simple as owning a purple dog and morality and ethics are heavily taken in to account, because if you are a foundation that believes owning a purple dog is immoral then accusing a member of that foundation of owning a purple dog is either defamation or slander if you write it or say it.

Where did I say it needs to be an accusation of a crime? Read my comment again. I explain how it needs to be an accusation of something illegal, immoral, or undesirable in some way. It doesn't have to be all 3.

 

But it certainly doesn't qualify as slander when you accuse someone of something which is none of the 3. Accepting payment to visit a booth at an event is not any of these things.

 

However, just like you want to misrepresent my comment to make it sound like I'm saying slander has to be an accusation of a crime, I'm sure you'll want to misrepresent the original accusation to make it sound like the YouTubers are being accused of something other than accepting payment to visit a booth at an event.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Where did I say it needs to be an accusation of a crime? Read my comment again. I explain how it needs to be an accusation of something illegal, immoral, or undesirable in some way. It doesn't have to be all 3.

 

But it certainly doesn't qualify as slander when you accuse someone of something which is none of the 3. Accepting payment to visit a booth at an event is not any of these things.

 

However, just like you want to misrepresent my comment to make it sound like I'm saying slander has to be an accusation of a crime, I'm sure you'll want to misrepresent the original accusation to make it sound like the YouTubers are being accused of something other than accepting payment to visit a booth at an event.

You didn't and neither did I say you said it only needs to be a crime, I restated what slander is and you can read my edit for further as to why it is not actually your view or the accusers view that matters as to if it is slander or not.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Where did I say it needs to be an accusation of a crime? Read my comment again. I explain how it needs to be an accusation of something illegal, immoral, or undesirable in some way. It doesn't have to be all 3.

 

 

When a journalist presents a product without disclosing being paid to do so, it is being immoral, unethical and it is illegal all at the same time.  To accuse a journalist of doing so is slander, it damages their reputation and accuses them of failing to disclose conflicting financial relationships.

 

[DezGalbie]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When a journalist presents a product without disclosing being paid to do so, it is being immoral, unethical and it is illegal all at the same time.  To accuse a journalist of doing so is slander, it damages their reputation and accuses them of failing to disclose conflicting financial relationships.

 

Yes, being accused of doing that would be slander.

 

But this IS NOT the accusation which was made. The accusation was that the YouTubers took payment to visit a booth at an event. The accusation WAS NOT that they took payment to present a product without disclosing that fact.

 

Is it illegal or immoral to accept payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

Is it slander to accuse someone of taking payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Yes, being accused of doing that would be slander.

 

But this IS NOT the accusation which was made. The accusation was that the YouTubers took payment to visit a booth at an event. The accusation WAS NOT that they took payment to present a product without disclosing that fact.

 

Is it illegal or immoral to accept payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

Is it slander to accuse someone of taking payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

You seriously can't see how there is no difference?  You are splitting hairs.  It is a slanderous act and can be taken to court under defamation laws.

EDIT:and you are ignoring the part where the viewer doesn't know they are watching paid content.

 

Quote

Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about.

Quote

Another crucial part of a defamation case is that the person makes the false statement with a certain kind of intent. The statement must have been made with knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth (meaning the person who said it questioned the truthfulness but said it anyhow). If the person being defamed is a private citizen and not a celebrity or public figure, defamation can also be proven when the statement was made with negligence as to determining its truth (the person speaking should have known it was false or should have questioned it). This means it is easier to prove defamation when you are a private citizen. There is a higher standard required if you are a public figure.

Linus has already said someone cancelled their floatplane due to this accusation.  Whilst that is only one example, it stands as evidence that any drop in viewers and revenue after such a claim is the result of such a claim.  There is no other way to spin this, it is a slanderous claim and because it is in writing it is also Libel and this bloke would have to prove it true in order to avoid losing any litigation brought to him.

 

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/differences-between-defamation-slander-and-libel

[Derangel]

10 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Yes, being accused of doing that would be slander.

 

But this IS NOT the accusation which was made. The accusation was that the YouTubers took payment to visit a booth at an event. The accusation WAS NOT that they took payment to present a product without disclosing that fact.

 

Is it illegal or immoral to accept payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

Is it slander to accuse someone of taking payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Yes, it IS illegal to do that. Because it would count as sponsorship. For any of these people based in the US ALL sponsorship are REQUIRED to be exposed in a clear manner. That is the law. Beyond that, it is a breach of trust between the youtuber and their audience not to disclose such things, meaning that they accusation is attempting to say that they violated what is considered ethical practices for their job.

 

Yes it very much is slander to publicly state that they did that because that accusation is, in fact, accusing them of unethical and illegal (in some countries) actions.

[Lathlaer]

1 hour ago, DezGalbie said:

Is it illegal or immoral to accept payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

Is it slander to accuse someone of taking payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

It is when you know they already posted a video and know very well there is no disclosure.

 

Videos of coverage have been already uploaded to YT and have been seen by thousands of people. Claiming that they accepted payment for booth coverage when it's established that there was no disclosure of payments is a subject to slander defense because it implicates them in doing something ethically immoral and, like others pointed out, illegal.

 

Imagine a scenario where there is a youtuber who made a video of himself attending a party and showing that he was heavy drinking in that party (not an illegal act). 

 

Now imagine someone making a claim that they saw that youtuber driving a car from that party (driving a car is also not an illegal act).

 

That person can be slapped with a slander lawsuit because while drinking is not illegal and driving a car is also not illegal, driving under influence is. The accuser can't just say "I did not accuse him of driving under influence, I just said he was driving a car" and expect to get out on technicality.

[Sniperfox47]

13 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Beside I got a Dyson, and they are actually excellent vacuums. Doing research, i quickly discovered that vacuums that actually do a decent job, cost around the same price or more. I just opened BestBuy flyer last week, and noticed a Miele vacuum for 1000$ Canadian. I could buy 2x Dyson on special (well, not the battery ones, but the normal ones). And that is not some exception.. at 350$ Canadian you still have crap vacuum that does, at best, and OK job once all its filters are cleaned/replaced, but not comfortable to use, and reduce in suction rapidly.  Of course, the best is central system, but that is a different market. Anyway, my point is that Dyson does decent stuff that is all. It's not some crap product that is being pushed into our face wasting everyone's time... granted most people are younger audience and don't care about vacuums, but isn't that Dyson wasting its money?

Agreed. I actually bought a DC77 Cinetic for our cleaners work because the *industrial* ones we get for them from our contract partner are just absolute trash. No filter. No loss of suction, and they handle large debris as well or even better than a lot of industrial vacuums.

 

I loved their dyson piece, it was cool to see a bunch of the tech that goes into it and that's the kind of stuff I watch for, and pretty much the whole reason I subscribe for floatplane. I mean hell I don't even use hairdryers but I'd have loved to see an analysis of their Supersonic. That thing is freaking tech and design central. Heck even their fans would be neat to see a deep dive of. They're basically the Bose of their market, everything they touch is so over-engineered.

 

Is Miele a good quality vacuum though? I mean at their price and with the fact that they still use bags rather than cyclones, I figured they're just a status symbol. Like the Apple of appliance companies.

[Dylanc1500]

14 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Agreed. I actually bought a DC77 Cinetic for our cleaners work because the *industrial* ones we get for them from our contract partner are just absolute trash. No filter. No loss of suction, and they handle large debris as well or even better than a lot of industrial vacuums.

 

I loved their dyson piece, it was cool to see a bunch of the tech that goes into it and that's the kind of stuff I watch for, and pretty much the whole reason I subscribe for floatplane. I mean hell I don't even use hairdryers but I'd have loved to see an analysis of their Supersonic. That thing is freaking tech and design central. Heck even their fans would be neat to see a deep dive of. They're basically the Bose of their market, everything they touch is so over-engineered.

 

Is Miele a good quality vacuum though? I mean at their price and with the fact that they still use bags rather than cyclones, I figured they're just a status symbol. Like the Apple of appliance companies.

As someone with a Miele I can attest that they are some powerhouses, and they are extremely quiet. Also, if you are someone with respiratory issues, such as myself (Cystic Fibrosis), then you will like them over any bag-less vacuum due to the redundant levels of filtration they have. Also since the bags are self sealing, not having to be exposed to the contents when disposing of them is a plus.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Is Miele a good quality vacuum though? I mean at their price and with the fact that they still use bags rather than cyclones, I figured they're just a status symbol. Like the Apple of appliance companies.

I have one of their corded vacuums with the bag and two filters.  It sucks so hard it is sometimes too hard to push along the carpet. Very good vacuum and I recommend them heaps.

 

EDIT: plus what @Dylanc1500 said, those two filters (one is a HEPA) make a huge difference for the amount of dust they throw around.

[Lathlaer]

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Heck even their fans would be neat to see a deep dive of.

I have their fan/air purifier and that's some good shit. And always a conversation starter whenever someone visits and is not aware of its existence ("where is the air coming from?")

[spartaman64]

3 hours ago, DezGalbie said:

Yes, being accused of doing that would be slander.

 

But this IS NOT the accusation which was made. The accusation was that the YouTubers took payment to visit a booth at an event. The accusation WAS NOT that they took payment to present a product without disclosing that fact.

 

Is it illegal or immoral to accept payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

 

Is it slander to accuse someone of taking payment to visit a booth? No, it is not.

he claimed you need to pay them in order for them to visit your booth which was proven false 

[NumLock21]

That person's twitter is back up.

And Jay seems to know who is actually is

https://twitter.com/JayzTwoCents/status/1007090818182598656

 

 

 

[Pretzel4000]

"Is by far the most expensive" ROFLMAO