Reviewer Ethics

[GDRRiley]

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

In the video Linus said he paid for the Ruckus gear at his old house ($1,000 AP), but for this video in the new house he says that Ruckus sent him over $10,000 worth of their networking gear. At the start of the video he says "With the help of Ruckus who sent over not only this but another 5 (supposed to be another 7) of their WIFI 6 access points and Ubiqiti who provided the PoE switch that is going to power it all... Like seriously, this is over 10 grand of the best wifi gear money can buy" and just before the Backblaze sponsor spot he says "So yeah thanks for sending those over" [referring to Ruckus].

 

By saying they 'sent over' the gear it implies to me that they provided it to him for free. If that's not the case then it really isn't made clear in the video. It should be made very clear whether or not he paid for it, received it at a discount, or was provided it for free. In the video he demonstrates the product, reviews it (tests it against other access points, tests its network speed and range) and ultimately endorses the product. If the company is giving him thousands of dollars worth of free products that he is keeping for his own personal use in his home then he really needs to declare that when endorsing them.

he mentioned he got the cable for a discount but got the wifi gear for free. 

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

By saying they 'sent over' the gear it implies to me that they provided it to him for free. If that's not the case then it really isn't made clear in the video.

Right, I only glanced through the video so I only caught the part where he talked about his old network.

[rockyroller]

On 9/12/2021 at 2:28 AM, blue2kid3 said:

It kills me to feel like this and to jump into this but maybe it is just me. 

 

 After thinking about it for months and months I felt I should voice my concerns directly to the source. 

 

 I strongly feel that LTT including Linus has become very Unethical. Now I will state I DO NOT think Linus or anyone at LTT is a bad person in anyway. In fact I would say they are good people.

 

 I just feel Linus and LTT should no longer be trusted as an unbias review site / Youtube channel.

 

 I encourage you to make your own opinions on the subject. 

 

 What are Ethics in reviews, what is inappropriate and how do you stay unbias? 

 

 Pay to Play: It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

 It is unethical to be compensated in exchange to review a product regardless if its positive or negative in conclusion.

 

 What is okay? It is okay to have advertisement but advertisement must be clearly outlined and opinions must remain out of a payed advertisement I.E. It is unethical to say in an ad this is the best product we have seen. A review must be objective and can have option. An advertisement should not cross "contaminate" a reviewers opinion I.E. "This is the best product we have ever used at our company" 

 

 It is more my opinion that sponsored content is wrong by both using products for personal gain, and using sponsored content as if it is beneficial for a consumer. Why? Because sponsored content will have a context of give and take it is not a zero sum gain. Sponsored content is always in the light as if it was a review or objective and something a consumer can trust and take another word for, however that is the exact opposite purpose of sponsored content. In a typical commercial you will always see why brand A) is always better than brand B) this is easy to dismiss and think critically as you know company A will always put product A in a better light than product B in sponsored content this should never be the case as it leans far to heavily on your trust with an unbias reviewer so it is much more difficult to separate or discern when product A is getting its best foot forward. IE a 3090 playing a cherry picked list of games because that is the goal of sponsored content and is anti viewer and anti consumer. 

 

 

 I don't want to make anyone feel any way to strongly about this post. All I want is for those to maybe become encouraged to think for themselves and hopefully have more transparency and improved Ethics at LTT.

 

 

 With only love - Bluekid

 

 

bias has nothing to do with ethics which are lines in the sand you or society decide not to cross.

people should always attempt to get extra information on a topic, even information from the opponents, give the 'facts' the baloney test, and decide for themselves.

Trusting a single person to always give you the correct information is behind every major F-up in the history of the world.

[Ankh Tech]

Ok, it's time to join this discussion, I fully agree with the OP here based on me watching other content types, mostly gaming, and seeing that youtuber's like Blitz for example in his No Man's sky video he put #ad in the title where it is visible. The case is similar where he has been given a free key to the game. He has to fully disclose the fact that this video is sponsored, or supported.

 

And while I understand these are two different categories, I believe the rules should be the same. Many of these popular gaming youtuber's affect the decisions of many people wether to buy a game or not, mostly the former. The same should be in the tech category. Linus and LMG affects the decisions of many people, and him giving a slightly biased review or not properly discolsing a sponsor affects alot of decisions.

 

Now please understand I am not blaming LMG in any way, this happens in alot of categories with lot's of different youtubers. The rules aren't strict enough for when sponsors are interfering. I hope that people understand the fact that the influence these youtubers have is alot, and even the slightest of bias due to a sponsorship, or not fully discolsing wether the equipment was free or discounted in ruckus' case, can cause alot of mayhem, such as this post right here.

[LogicalDrm]

6 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

 I am very happy a mod see's the issues here.  

Being a moderator on the forums doesn't mean we are all on LMGs side. I, for example, have always been very critical towards their style and direction with content. But I also am very strict on delivering facts and providing sources for claims. Like asking you to provide link to WAN Show where Linus supposedly says that there won't be any ads shown on forums.

 

What he has said (I can't link to video, it's been couple of years) that there won't be any (more) full page ads, ads with animations or sound or any other type which are usually the reason people use ad blocks.

[Chris Pratt]

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

In the video Linus said he paid for the Ruckus gear at his old house ($1,000 AP), but for this video in the new house he says that Ruckus sent him over $10,000 worth of their networking gear. At the start of the video he says "With the help of Ruckus who sent over not only this but another 5 (supposed to be another 7) of their WIFI 6 access points and Ubiqiti who provided the PoE switch that is going to power it all... Like seriously, this is over 10 grand of the best wifi gear money can buy" and just before the Backblaze sponsor spot he says "So yeah thanks for sending those over" [referring to Ruckus].

 

By saying they 'sent over' the gear it implies to me that they provided it to him for free. If that's not the case then it really isn't made clear in the video. It should be made very clear whether or not he paid for it, received it at a discount, or was provided it for free. In the video he demonstrates the product, reviews it (tests it against other access points, tests its network speed and range) and ultimately endorses the product. If the company is giving him thousands of dollars worth of free products that he is keeping for his own personal use in his home then he really needs to declare that when endorsing them.

I'm not sure what more you wanted. He mentioned numerous times that the gear was provided, presumably gratis. If he had paid, even something, he would have said "bought". People just don't say "provided" when they still have to pay for something.

 

Regardless, this is not a review. Even pitting one product against another isn't a review. That's just a comparison. It wasn't even really pitting two products against each other. He had an existing WiFi solution in his home that was provided by the builder/previous owner, and he was just comparing how much a difference adding all that new gear made. You can't even draw any conclusions from that, aside from whether it was worth Linus' time and effort to do something different in the first place, in his particular home. It wasn't the same AP arrangement, and the two ecosystems of products don't even compete on the same field. If that's what constitutes a review to you, then that is the problem right there.

 

Finally, this gear isn't even something for consumers. At best, someone watching the video might also have or be involved in an influential position with a business that needs new WiFi gear, and this might help Ruckus do some business there. However, companies don't just run down and buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment because they saw it work well in some dude's house on a video. They take bids and consider numerous factors before making such a substantial capital investment.

[HanZie82]

On the LTT channel i think is more a viewer problem then the creator.

I think ethics are really important, but if you use some brains its not hard to see the channel is primarily for entertainment.
And should be taken as such.

And one should not confuse a showcase or just a video for a review. Those are very different, and personally i've not seen any breach in that trust.

 

 

TL:DR; its not an LTT problem its a viewer understanding problem.

[MageTank]

On 9/11/2021 at 9:28 PM, blue2kid3 said:

It kills me to feel like this and to jump into this but maybe it is just me. 

 

 After thinking about it for months and months I felt I should voice my concerns directly to the source. 

 

 I strongly feel that LTT including Linus has become very Unethical. Now I will state I DO NOT think Linus or anyone at LTT is a bad person in anyway. In fact I would say they are good people.

 

 I just feel Linus and LTT should no longer be trusted as an unbias review site / Youtube channel.

 

 I encourage you to make your own opinions on the subject. 

 

 What are Ethics in reviews, what is inappropriate and how do you stay unbias? 

 

 Pay to Play: It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

 It is unethical to be compensated in exchange to review a product regardless if its positive or negative in conclusion.

 

 What is okay? It is okay to have advertisement but advertisement must be clearly outlined and opinions must remain out of a payed advertisement I.E. It is unethical to say in an ad this is the best product we have seen. A review must be objective and can have option. An advertisement should not cross "contaminate" a reviewers opinion I.E. "This is the best product we have ever used at our company" 

 

 It is more my opinion that sponsored content is wrong by both using products for personal gain, and using sponsored content as if it is beneficial for a consumer. Why? Because sponsored content will have a context of give and take it is not a zero sum gain. Sponsored content is always in the light as if it was a review or objective and something a consumer can trust and take another word for, however that is the exact opposite purpose of sponsored content. In a typical commercial you will always see why brand A) is always better than brand B) this is easy to dismiss and think critically as you know company A will always put product A in a better light than product B in sponsored content this should never be the case as it leans far to heavily on your trust with an unbias reviewer so it is much more difficult to separate or discern when product A is getting its best foot forward. IE a 3090 playing a cherry picked list of games because that is the goal of sponsored content and is anti viewer and anti consumer. 

 

 

 I don't want to make anyone feel any way to strongly about this post. All I want is for those to maybe become encouraged to think for themselves and hopefully have more transparency and improved Ethics at LTT.

 

 

 With only love - Bluekid

 

 

I am not a "reviewer" per se, but I work in a lab that happens to receive sample parts from the very same vendors Linus would source his review samples from and I might be able to offer some insight on the ethics of keeping review components and whether it impacts the results of tests.

 

First and foremost, it is important to understand that your mindset as a consumer and the mindset of a reviewer/testing engineer is going to be completely different. Products we receive have NO retail value and cannot be sold whatsoever (at least under the terms I receive my parts, they can't). Secondly, the hardware is going to get abused in a way that we would not ethically be able to sell it to someone else or consider it to hold its retail value after having tested it. The consequences of selling these parts (and even giving these parts away, in the cases of engineering samples) is that we lose our vendor relationships/access to these sample parts and have to wait until retail channels are available to conduct our testing and reviews. This is not ideal, especially when you work in a systems designs environment and need a lead time on tests before mass production.

 

Obviously my need for samples is to determine component compatibility and to prep the hardware/software environments for an ideal end-user experience. This differs from that of a reviewer, where their need for a sample is often to critique the product to give their audience insight on the quality and value of the product. There is a small parallel here, but not much of an overlap. Still, the same limitations do apply.

 

If I fail to catch an issue before production with my review samples, the customers experience will suffer and the quality/perception of my products/brands will be impacted. If a reviewer fails to accurately depict a product to their audience, their reputation will suffer and they will no longer be viewed as a trusted source and their audience will leave them, risking their livelihood. I would wager that they wouldn't risk their livelihood on receiving free GPU's just to appease their relationship with these companies. At the end of the day, we all understand it's business and very rarely will you find someone in this industry that takes a review personally.

 

To that, I'll say it's not unethical to keep a product after a review, as long as the product is never to be sold and is only used for further comparison/testing. Purchasing review samples from retailers is simply not feasible given the testing timeframe and methodology one must subject the products to in order to obtain accurate results, and reviewers/system engineers have target dates to meet before these/their products hit the shelves.

 

I do agree that it is unethical to be compensated in exchange for a review of a product, regardless of the connotation of the exposure. This is why reputable sources go to great lengths to make sure their content is listed as "paid sponsorships" or "promotional ads" to differentiate them from the standard content. I personally avoid this content like the plague because it offers no objective insight on product performance beyond what is written in a script by a first party, but I do not see promotional sponsors/ads as unethical as long as it is outlined as such in advance.

 

I also disagree with your assertation that its unethical to have an opinion in a sponsored ad. There are plenty of people that choose their sponsored ads responsibly and do so because they firmly believe in the product and what they say about said product. Plenty of people that will stake their reputation on the line by both being sponsored by a product and that is fine, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of that going awry and don't walk it back the moment it does by saying "It wasn't actually our opinion, we just said what they wanted us to say". If you are sponsored by a product and give your opinion on said sponsored product, stand behind it.

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, Chris Pratt said:

Regardless, this is not a review. Even pitting one product against another isn't a review. That's just a comparison. It wasn't even really pitting two products against each other.

What makes a review a review? I never said it was a good review or a comprehensive review.

Definition of a review is to make a critical appraisal of something. By testing the access point for its speed and coverage, key features of an access point, is he not appraising it? If your argument is that it was a "product showcase" (what they call sponsored content) then why wasn't it declared as such?

 

Another scenario; Linus receives a free Tesla Model X and he makes a video driving the car, testing the mileage you can get from a single charge, having a drag race against his old Honda Civic, and talks about how much he is enjoying the new car... Is it a review? Is it a sponsored video? Is it okay if he declares the arrangement with Tesla just by saying "Tesla sent over this car" without explicitly declaring that he got it for free and is getting to keep it for his personal use? He wasn't paid in cash directly but if he gets to keep a $100,000 car then isn't he receiving some compensation? Shouldn't that be clearly declared to the audience?

 

All I would like to see is better clarity what the arrangement with the company is when showcasing/featuring/reviewing a product. Did they purchase it themselves to test? Did they receive it for free? Were they paid to promote it? Did they receive any gifts or compensation other than money?

As I mentioned in my first reply I would like to see some sort of notice or declaration saying "provided by..." or "supplied by..." or some other such message when they are featuring products they have received for free.

[BuckGup]

Regardless of the actual content the clickbait titles and thumbnails are pretty unethical as they prey on disabled individuals. I don't think it's LTTs main goal but it's a byproduct of greed they could 100% change and don't that's why it's so unethical.

[Middcore]

7 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Regardless of the actual content the clickbait titles and thumbnails are pretty unethical as they prey on disabled individuals. I don't think it's LTTs main goal but it's a byproduct of greed they could 100% change and don't that's why it's so unethical.

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

How are clickbait titles and thumbnails preying on "the disabled"? Disabled in what way? 

[BuckGup]

2 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

How are clickbait titles and thumbnails preying on "the disabled"? Disabled in what way? 

If you are blind there is no way to tell what the videos are about based upon the title or thumbnail. You'll have to spend a long time using dictation to read through the description box to maybe get an idea of what product is featured. But you truly won't know based on "THIS COMPANY MESSED UP" as the title opposed to something like "A look at AMD's 5950x higher than usual failure rates"

[Middcore]

9 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

If you are blind there is no way to tell what the videos are about based upon the title or thumbnail. You'll have to spend a long time using dictation to read through the description box to maybe get an idea of what product is featured. But you truly won't know based on "THIS COMPANY MESSED UP" as the title opposed to something like "A look at AMD's 5950x higher than usual failure rates"

 

This really seems like reaching for a way to turn clickbait from an annoyance into an ethical issue so people can be more indignant about it. A sighted person will have to watch further into the video to find out what the topic is, a blind person will have to listen to the dictation longer. But the clickbait isn't specifically targeting or placing more of a burden on a blind person than anybody else, beyond the extent that a blind person will unavoidably have a tougher time using a video-based platform in general. Arguably a blind person is actually less vulnerable to clickbait because they are literally immune to the typical cheesy thumbnail image. Blind people don't make up a significant enough portion of YouTube users for it to be worthwhile for anybody to specifically try to "prey" on them for clicks even if they wanted to.  

 

This is a complete tangent from the actual topic of the thread, though.

 

 

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

What makes a review a review? I never said it was a good review or a comprehensive review.

Definition of a review is to make a critical appraisal of something. By testing the access point for its speed and coverage, key features of an access point, is he not appraising it? If your argument is that it was a "product showcase" (what they call sponsored content) then why wasn't it declared as such?

 

Another scenario; Linus receives a free Tesla Model X and he makes a video driving the car, testing the mileage you can get from a single charge, having a drag race against his old Honda Civic, and talks about how much he is enjoying the new car... Is it a review? Is it a sponsored video? Is it okay if he declares the arrangement with Tesla just by saying "Tesla sent over this car" without explicitly declaring that he got it for free and is getting to keep it for his personal use? He wasn't paid in cash directly but if he gets to keep a $100,000 car then isn't he receiving some compensation? Shouldn't that be clearly declared to the audience?

 

All I would like to see is better clarity what the arrangement with the company is when showcasing/featuring/reviewing a product. Did they purchase it themselves to test? Did they receive it for free? Were they paid to promote it? Did they receive any gifts or compensation other than money?

As I mentioned in my first reply I would like to see some sort of notice or declaration saying "provided by..." or "supplied by..." or some other such message when they are featuring products they have received for free.

This is an interesting scenario you've outlined and it does raise an interesting question. In my example above, I mentioned:

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

To that, I'll say it's not unethical to keep a product after a review, as long as the product is never to be sold and is only used for further comparison/testing.

If the Tesla is being used as a daily driver without the intent to use for further testing & comparison, I would say it's no longer under review and it would be unethical to use it in that capacity. When I receive parts/products from vendors, they are inventoried and placed on shelves when not in use. When they reach an age where they are no longer relevant or used in production (or for the sake of the review analogy, relevant for consumer reviews for sake of comparison), they get sent off to a recycling location that can securely dispose of the products and ensure they are not sold to the public. Some of our vendor partners allow us to ship them back to their facilities which is helpful, but some have us handle the recycling ourselves. I certainly wouldn't take the products home and use them myself, that just seems weird.

 

22 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

This really seems like reaching for a way to turn clickbait from an annoyance into an ethical issue so people can be more indignant about it. A sighted person will have to watch further into the video to find out what the topic is, a blind person will have to listen to the dictation longer. But the clickbait isn't specifically targeting or placing more of a burden on a blind person than anybody else, beyond the extent that a blind person will unavoidably have a tougher time using a video-based platform in general. Arguably a blind person is actually less vulnerable to clickbait because they are literally immune to the typical cheesy thumbnail image. Blind people don't make up a significant enough portion of YouTube users for it to be worthwhile for anybody to specifically try to "prey" on them for clicks even if they wanted to.  

 

This is a complete tangent from the actual topic of the thread, though.

 

 

I don't want to put words in @BuckGup's mouth, but he might be referring to ADA or WCAG compliance. While not technically an "ethical" responsibility of youtubers (it falls more on the site owner to ensure compliance, and would definitely be relevant for written review sources such as Tomshardware or GamersNexus), Youtube videos falls outside of this being a hard requirement. That said, I'd definitely prefer to see titles that accurately reflect the content so people with screen reading software have an idea of what it is they are about to consume, but alas, clickbait metrics are far too appealing for those wishing to market themselves to a wider audience.

[LogicalDrm]

51 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

If you are blind there is no way to tell what the videos are about based upon the title or thumbnail. You'll have to spend a long time using dictation to read through the description box to maybe get an idea of what product is featured. But you truly won't know based on "THIS COMPANY MESSED UP" as the title opposed to something like "A look at AMD's 5950x higher than usual failure rates"

Ok, this is classic case of using group of people to drive your own narrative. NO DISABLED PERSON will be taken advantage by thumbnails and titles. Not more than any regular person. Sure, some people have learning disabilities and other things that may make them more susceptible for advertisign and marketing tricks. As will notable number of those people who may or may not have such things even undiagnosed. So unless you yourself are part of some disabled community, or have extensive work with them, DON'T use them as part of your own agenda.

 

Saying this as visually impaired who has spent greater part of life with blind people and other visually impaired.

Edited September 13, 2021 by LogicalDrm
Grammatical errors

[BuckGup]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I don't want to put words in @BuckGup's mouth, but he might be referring to ADA or WCAG compliance. While not technically an "ethical" responsibility of youtubers (it falls more on the site owner to ensure compliance, and would definitely be relevant for written review sources such as Tomshardware or GamersNexus), Youtube videos falls outside of this being a hard requirement. That said, I'd definitely prefer to see titles that accurately reflect the content so people with screen reading software have an idea of what it is they are about to consume, but alas, clickbait metrics are far too appealing for those wishing to market themselves to a wider audience.

 

26 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

This really seems like reaching for a way to turn clickbait from an annoyance into an ethical issue so people can be more indignant about it. A sighted person will have to watch further into the video to find out what the topic is, a blind person will have to listen to the dictation longer. But the clickbait isn't specifically targeting or placing more of a burden on a blind person than anybody else, beyond the extent that a blind person will unavoidably have a tougher time using a video-based platform in general. Arguably a blind person is actually less vulnerable to clickbait because they are literally immune to the typical cheesy thumbnail image. Blind people don't make up a significant enough portion of YouTube users for it to be worthwhile for anybody to specifically try to "prey" on them for clicks even if they wanted to.  

I mean the thread is directly asking if LTT is ethical. While it doesn't target blind people directly they do have more of a burden because of it. I could see in the thumbnail they are holding an iPhone and know the title has something do to with that and save potentially 5-10 minutes of listening. Like MageTank referenced there are suppose to be guidelines in place for disabled users can use the internet seamlessly too. It's not the quantity or how big the community of blind people are it's the fact of what's happening. That's like saying we won't invest in handrails because not enough old people die a year to justify the cost. All you need is one person for it to count. Clickbait is a whole different story as it's preying on kids

[BuckGup]

6 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Ok, this is classic case of using group of people to drive your own narrative. NO DISABLED PERSON will be taken advantage by thumbnails and titles. Not more than any regular person.

How though? How is clickbait not harder for someone who is blind than someone who is not when only comparing traditional titles vs clickbait ones?

[Chris Pratt]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

What makes a review a review? I never said it was a good review or a comprehensive review.

Definition of a review is to make a critical appraisal of something. By testing the access point for its speed and coverage, key features of an access point, is he not appraising it? If your argument is that it was a "product showcase" (what they call sponsored content) then why wasn't it declared as such?

 

Another scenario; Linus receives a free Tesla Model X and he makes a video driving the car, testing the mileage you can get from a single charge, having a drag race against his old Honda Civic, and talks about how much he is enjoying the new car... Is it a review? Is it a sponsored video? Is it okay if he declares the arrangement with Tesla just by saying "Tesla sent over this car" without explicitly declaring that he got it for free and is getting to keep it for his personal use? He wasn't paid in cash directly but if he gets to keep a $100,000 car then isn't he receiving some compensation? Shouldn't that be clearly declared to the audience?

 

All I would like to see is better clarity what the arrangement with the company is when showcasing/featuring/reviewing a product. Did they purchase it themselves to test? Did they receive it for free? Were they paid to promote it? Did they receive any gifts or compensation other than money?

As I mentioned in my first reply I would like to see some sort of notice or declaration saying "provided by..." or "supplied by..." or some other such message when they are featuring products they have received for free.

Ironically, you actually explained it yourself here. A review is more thorough. Yes, both the network video and the hypothetical Tesla video would be closest defined as showcases, not reviews. When it comes to a showcase, it actually doesn't matter if it's sponsored or not, because it's just one person's experience and reactions without any scientific method. If it is sponsored, one could perhaps wonder whether the reaction and/or enthusiasm was real or fake, but at that point, it's inconsequential.

 

Just look at anything ever covered on Short Circuit. Those are not reviews by any stretch of the imagination. They're just one person's hot take from what could best be described as a product demo or showcase. It may introduce me to a product I previously didn't know about, or I might get some additional information about a product I was already interested in, but it in no way should be the sole factor in my purchasing decision one way or another. The reaction of the person doing the video may have been good, but I might actually end up hating it. It's YMMV, just here it is. I could care less if that kind of content is sponsored or not. It doesn't affect anything one way or another.

 

Now going back to the networking video, what would have been the difference had the equipment not been provided and instead Linus spent $10K of his own money, without any involvement from Ruckus? Does that tell you anything more than you got from the video as-is? Nope. It's still just Linus' off the cuff reactions and personal opinions.

 

Further, did he actually really evaluate the gear in any meaningful way? No. The only thing you got was that it did the bare minimum of what it's supposed to do, i.e. cover a particular area with decent WiFi signal. That tells you nothing about Ruckus or their gear apart from that it can do the bare minimum any such WiFi solution should do. Something from Ubiquity or any number of other manufacturers could have performed the same or better.

 

That's the point. It's not a review. It was just Linus adding some kit to his home. As with any of the previous videos in this series, it's just Linus picking stuff that works for his unique situation. Who the hell even cares if the gear was provided or purchased? It doesn't change anything, particularly because if it had been purchased rather than provided, you'd still know not one iota more than you would otherwise. Frankly, I don't think it was even necessary to disclose that it was provided in the first place, but it shows the ethical principles of LMG that they did so anyways.

 

[LogicalDrm]

2 hours ago, BuckGup said:

How though? How is clickbait not harder for someone who is blind than someone who is not when only comparing traditional titles vs clickbait ones?

I didn't say it wouldn't be. I'm just saying that you are using visually impaired to make your own narrative more impactful. Don't you think clickbait titles and thumbnails are harder for normal, healthy people as well? Or are they fine for normal people, but LMG should only change them to make it easier for visually impaired and those with learning disabilities?

 

This is OT tangent, as said. So I won't continue it further. It just ANNOYS me a lot that you "normies" make assumptions on how people who aren't like you view the world. In here, for example, blind person lacks the visual aspect of the video. That would be NOPE on thumbnail, so it being or not being informative and descriptive of content doesn't even matter. Its just title, tags, description, what is said in video etc. So same things person with 20/20 vision will note. For example in LTT videos the main subject is said within first minute of the video. So does title really matter, to either group? Not really when you are aware that it is flawed. And that aspect is same for both groups.

[Mooshi]

Alternative title: This is why I watch GamersNexus...

[Touch My Hamm]

Alot of far reaching for saying "Unethical". There is no such thing as an unbias review or one that is 100% unbias would be poor since the person might know nothing about what they are reviewing. It is more if you trust the opinion of X person over Y person. LTT does a great job of clearly showing what is sponsored and what is a review.

 

Does LTT have videos that are 100% sponsored and given the product which has a complete "Review" in the title? I usually have my youtube time playing in the background while im working.

 

They might not have "bad" things to say this would be the old adage "If you dont have anything nice to say dont say anything at all". I am curious to know as most of their titles are mostly clickbait and unless its something that I specifically want to see I skip over these days as I am usually listening to my youtube while I work as background noise lol. 

The only Ethics that I care about is if the reviewer didnt pay for it or the company sent them the products that they clearly state this. I Personally dont care if they got the product for free or not as the key points usually talked about are facts you can look up. Does it do X, Y, and Z? His talking about the WIFI at his house. Was there really a review saying we should go buy it as its a great product? He talked about how it does X, and Y with some key features that he used. To most people that setup is not only overkill but setting it up would be a nightmare as network stuff can be hard for even frontline IT workers. Most people will have the Modem box and a router with a few cables to their house. Maybe a cheap switch to break up the single cat 6 into multiple. 

 

LTT has a video on a monitor (cannot find video and not going to search forever to find this example) where the company had some shady past. They addressed that for a good % of the video before even starting the "review" of the monitor. This is more than most reviewers put in and usually its a line or 2 in a many page ad ridden review page. 

 

I dont see any problem with LTT keeping products that are not meant to be sent back or sent elsewhere. There is incentive for them to keep it as it could wind up in more videos or their actual work pc's. Wouldn't that be an even better review? If they not only talk about it on video but actually use it over another thing? This seems more petty being mad. Even at my company when we get a test of something alot of the time they dont bother wanting it back depending on what it is. Some things they send back and some dont bother as the cost to do all that work can add up and its usually on the side of the manufacturer to cover this cost not the person they want a review from. 

 

IMO the biggest issue I have is something that cannot be fixed or done as I would rather see how a product holds up after X amount of time. Ya the cool new fold phone but how does it look after 2 years of use? Or lets say a monitor after a year and you get a stuck or dead pixel how is the RMA for the company like and will they even allow it for X amount of stuck pixels. 

 

Watch multiple reviews from multiple sources. If your using LTT as a be all and wanting some weird 100% unbias everything paid for but never kept review thats just not possible. 

 

[Coastqr]

On 9/11/2021 at 6:28 PM, blue2kid3 said:

It kills me to feel like this and to jump into this but maybe it is just me. 

 

 After thinking about it for months and months I felt I should voice my concerns directly to the source. 

 

 I strongly feel that LTT including Linus has become very Unethical. Now I will state I DO NOT think Linus or anyone at LTT is a bad person in anyway. In fact I would say they are good people.

 

 I just feel Linus and LTT should no longer be trusted as an unbias review site / Youtube channel.

 

 I encourage you to make your own opinions on the subject. 

 

 What are Ethics in reviews, what is inappropriate and how do you stay unbias? 

 

 Pay to Play: It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

 It is unethical to be compensated in exchange to review a product regardless if its positive or negative in conclusion.

 

 What is okay? It is okay to have advertisement but advertisement must be clearly outlined and opinions must remain out of a payed advertisement I.E. It is unethical to say in an ad this is the best product we have seen. A review must be objective and can have option. An advertisement should not cross "contaminate" a reviewers opinion I.E. "This is the best product we have ever used at our company" 

 

 It is more my opinion that sponsored content is wrong by both using products for personal gain, and using sponsored content as if it is beneficial for a consumer. Why? Because sponsored content will have a context of give and take it is not a zero sum gain. Sponsored content is always in the light as if it was a review or objective and something a consumer can trust and take another word for, however that is the exact opposite purpose of sponsored content. In a typical commercial you will always see why brand A) is always better than brand B) this is easy to dismiss and think critically as you know company A will always put product A in a better light than product B in sponsored content this should never be the case as it leans far to heavily on your trust with an unbias reviewer so it is much more difficult to separate or discern when product A is getting its best foot forward. IE a 3090 playing a cherry picked list of games because that is the goal of sponsored content and is anti viewer and anti consumer. 

 

 

 I don't want to make anyone feel any way to strongly about this post. All I want is for those to maybe become encouraged to think for themselves and hopefully have more transparency and improved Ethics at LTT.

 

 

 With only love - Bluekid

 

 

i agree that i would prefer it if they didnt have sponsors, but as in every LTT vid i have seen, they clearly state that their sponsor is their sponsor, it is technically (no pun intended btw) okay

[Video Beagle]

On 9/11/2021 at 8:40 PM, KaitouX said:

The third is to have "Sponsored/Advertisement" written in some corner of the video during the entire sponsored section of the videos

This I agree with.

A gaming channel I watch has "Sponsered Content" ghosted in the corner of an entire video even when the video is about them playing D&D and the sponsorship is beer they were given to drink.

 

While that may be overdoing, I think overdoing is better than under, ESPECIALLY when the video is about the sponserd product.

 

For the topic itself...I feel they're pretty ethical in their dealings. I'm often critical on the "hows" they do, but not the "why's".

[HanZie82]

But let's really think about it tho.
Why don't you all demand this from regular TV broadcasts?
Yet demand it from way less scrupulous people on YouTube?
It comes over very hypocritical to me...

[KaitouX]

On 9/18/2021 at 12:58 PM, HanZie82 said:

But let's really think about it tho.
Why don't you all demand this from regular TV broadcasts?
Yet demand it from way less scrupulous people on YouTube?
It comes over very hypocritical to me...

Because in many cases it's already done. In many countries there are plenty of laws that apply strict regulations on these things to TV, the thing here is to also apply some to Youtube.

Also I'm pretty sure most wouldn't be against similar rules to apply to all type of media in case their country doesn't already have it.