Gamers Nexus alleges LMG has insufficient ethics and integrity

[Bograt]

5 minutes ago, filpo said:

@Ottoman420 is saying he isn't a bad person. Anyways, you don't know the whole story. Not even GN does. LMG does since that's where the employees are but we're just forum members not in touch with anyone on the team

 

he may be doing this to protect someone. If he's doing it for his reputation then it's wrong but i like to think he isn't

"is saying he isn't a bad person."
Why are you paraphrasing me as if you have presented a correction?

"Anyways, you don't know the whole story. Not even GN does. "
Irrelevant. The problem is poor ethics. The reasons do not matter. What matters is that LMG is hurting people and misleading others. They need to do better. 

"he may be doing this to protect someone."
How does one play the victim, gaslight people, sabotage small businesses, etc, etc to "protect" someone?

[TheProfosist]

3 minutes ago, Dom1252 said:

@Terren Tong 

where is response from CEO? or is Linus still CEO that he pins his own comment here? 

Linus essentially said in the post he commented because most if not all of this fell under his purview at the time.

[ConcernedCitizen]

26 minutes ago, TheProfosist said:

I think that all depends on local tax law, or tax law of the person donating.

No, since LMG was the entity auctioning it off for charity, the charitable donation would have been done by LMG.

Were all the other items being auctioned off for charity marked as tax deductible? If so, one can argue, that if the prototype being auctioned off would have gone under the radar and nobody would have noticed it, LMG would have marked it as tax deductible, therefore LMG would have stood to gain a monetary benefit from it.

[bandainamcofan]

Just now, DeerDK said:

• a person’s comments may already be in the public domain

You also ignore that it still concludes it isn't 100% necessary. I can also make the case he acted properly due to this point as well:

Quote

• it may be inappropriate to contact the person

For the fact that he already knew Linus and felt contacting him would be an ethical violation in and of itself. I don't know why he didn't. What I am sure of is that he certainly was not obligated to.

[Texbobcat]

2 minutes ago, GameFox said:

I agree with your points. After watching the video, my initial thought wasn't that Linus himself was a bad person, but instead his oversight caused these issues. His response as you said, paints a picture of him as the antagonist. I believe that if his response was different, there would not be as many people with pitchforks.

 

Hopefully he reverses his decision and addresses it to save a bit of his image. I will gladly continue to support his content if he does so, but I suppose his decision could go either way.

What difference does it make if he reverses his decision, either way he told us how he truly feels about the situation any new apology or update is just because he feels forced to do so to protect his business not because he feels bad for the way he treated his community, or the company he based so heavily.

[pretree]

6 minutes ago, CH23 said:

While I do agree that it would have been professional of Steve to contact LMG, the issue with the monoblock is not the phrasing of 'selling' versus 'auctioning', but that a piece of equipment that was lent to LMG, not owned by LMG is sold, is what's problematic.

And trying to make Steve seem like the bad guy by saying its for charity. Who cares if it's for charity? You don't have the right to give it to anyone else. Can Steve put Linus' house up for auction for charity? Such BS.

[Bograt]

3 minutes ago, filpo said:

@DeerDK was saying exactly that

 

Wow people are getting really involved in a thing that only two people should worry about. Linus and Steve

 

being in favour of a side doesn't mean your a fanboi. Just means you agree with them. I agree with Linus's statements somewhat, but in other cases, GN's too

"Wow people are getting really involved in a thing that only two people should worry about. Linus and Steve"
Is this a joke? Do you seriously think that LMG spreading misinformation and hurting businesses is only the business of Steve and Linus??

[Alvin853]

4 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

Did you actually read what you linked to? I cut out some pieces to highlight why I think that link actuall supports my position.

"

IPSO Blog: Do journalists have to contact people before they publish a story about them?

Complaints Officer Alice Gould explains the circumstances where journalists will need to contact someone they’re writing a story about – and why sometimes they don’t have to.

.....

At IPSO we receive quite a few inquiries from people wanting advice about whether journalists need to contact them before publishing a story about them.

If someone is involved in a news story, they could potentially be approached by members of the press for comment, information or even photographs. Some people may not want to speak to the press (advice about what to do if this is the case here) whereas others may choose to speak to journalists.

 

....

 

If an article contains personal or serious allegations or claims against an individual, it may be appropriate and necessary to give that individual an opportunity to respond to these claims, or to deny them if they wish.

 

.....

 

The Code also contains a requirement for a publication to give a “fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for”, but this relates to information that has already been published, rather than a requirement for pre-publication contact.

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 story
• it may be inappropriate to contact the person
• it may be impractical to contact everyone involved in the article.

"

 

 

So please tell me. Which of the points do you think absolves the need for reaching out?

 

I would say that "If an article contains personal or serious allegations or claims against an individual, it may be appropriate and necessary to give that individual an opportunity to respond to these claims, or to deny them if they wish." Indicates that it would have been appropriate to reach out.

 

GN did not make allegations or claims, they mostly just summarized facts that are already available on the internet for everyone to see.

 

Quote

If the article is reporting on factual information that is already in the public domain, such as a recent court case or comments made publicly on social media, not contacting someone before the article is published is highly unlikely to be a breach of our rules.

 

[GameFox]

2 minutes ago, Texbobcat said:

What difference does it make if he reverses his decision, either way he told us how he truly feels about the situation any new apology or update is just because he feels forced to do so to protect his business not because he feels bad for the way he treated his community, or the company he based so heavily.

I am inclined to agree. But I question, what else could he do to help in this situation? You are correct in that the damage is already done, but I want to look to what positive things can come out of a bad situation. I would argue that it looks bad for him, but I am hoping for the best as someone who enjoys LTT's content and tries to see the best in people.

[d0kt0ra]

I don't usually write here but for me, GN used the controversy to hit hard and intentionally on LTT. It's not that LTT is not fucked up their reviews, which in my opinion they should stop doing in their main channel and move all reviewing to another channel LTT LABS or something where they can use properly their labs for real reviews. LTT should be an entertaining channel because its success is based on its entertainment value. 

About GN - since Labs were announced GN's stance on LTT has significantly changed. First, they overblow the backpack issue. There are a lot of other tech reviewers who are quite incompetent in their reviews and rely strongly on friendships with sponsors like JayzTwoCents but GN has shed a single word for him. GN is clearly exploiting the community's dissatisfaction with LTT for their personal vendetta because probably they feel threatened by Labs. If LTT Labs start working properly it will make most of GN work pointless since Labs could review better and more thoroughly with proper management.

Note that when ASUS was burning AMD cpus they reached both AMD and ASUS, the same with 12v connector and Nvidia, the MSI saga and the list goes on. If they haven't reached LTT for comment on this video it's not because of objective journalism but because they want to create controversy. 

[DeerDK]

8 minutes ago, Bograt said:

...
GN did this.
...

No, if they did they could include that Billet and LGM were in dialog about compensation.

 

From the link bandainamcofan posted:

 

"If an article contains personal or serious allegations or claims against an individual, it may be appropriate and necessary to give that individual an opportunity to respond to these claims, or to deny them if they wish."

 

I can't really see how it would have been a major issue for GN to do this.

 

 

[TheProfosist]

Just now, ConcernedCitizen said:

No, since LMG was the entity auctioning it off for charity, the charitable donation would have been done by LMG.

Were all the other items being auctioned off for charity marked as tax deductible? If so, one can argue, that if the prototype being auctioned off would have gone under the radar and nobody would have noticed it, LMG would have marked it as tax deductible, therefore LMG would have stood to gain a monetary benefit from it.

Wow, thats what you're going after not the fact that it was auctioned when it was supposed to be shipped back and affected Billet in a number of ways. Left field much?

Do we even know how much it went for? My guess some amount fairly inconsequential compared to the company or even LTX. Money for charity is good to see, however much it is. Just sucks how it was raised this time.

[filpo]

1 minute ago, Bograt said:

s this a joke? Do you seriously think that LMG spreading misinformation and hurting businesses is only the business of Steve and Linus??

who owns LMG? Linus

 

Who owns GN?

I think you get the gist

7 minutes ago, Bograt said:

Irrelevant. The problem is poor ethics. The reasons do not matter. What matters is that LMG is hurting people and misleading others. They need to do better. 

sure, whatever you say

 

7 minutes ago, Bograt said:

How does one play the victim, gaslight people, sabotage small businesses, etc, etc to "protect" someone?

never mind, you're fixed on one decision anyways

[DeerDK]

5 minutes ago, bandainamcofan said:

...

For the fact that he already knew Linus and felt contacting him would be an ethical violation in and of itself. I don't know why he didn't. What I am sure of is that he certainly was not obligated to.

How would it be a ethical violation?!? 

 

[bandainamcofan]

1 minute ago, d0kt0ra said:

f they haven't reached LTT for comment on this video it's not because of objective journalism but because they want to create controversy. 

On this very page is an article from an ethics board saying there is NO OBLIGATION TO REACH FOR COMMENT.

[squid4016]

21 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

Did you actually read what you linked to? I cut out some pieces to highlight why I think that link actuall supports my position.

"

IPSO Blog: Do journalists have to contact people before they publish a story about them?

Complaints Officer Alice Gould explains the circumstances where journalists will need to contact someone they’re writing a story about – and why sometimes they don’t have to.

.....

At IPSO we receive quite a few inquiries from people wanting advice about whether journalists need to contact them before publishing a story about them.

If someone is involved in a news story, they could potentially be approached by members of the press for comment, information or even photographs. Some people may not want to speak to the press (advice about what to do if this is the case here) whereas others may choose to speak to journalists.

 

....

 

If an article contains personal or serious allegations or claims against an individual, it may be appropriate and necessary to give that individual an opportunity to respond to these claims, or to deny them if they wish.

 

.....

 

The Code also contains a requirement for a publication to give a “fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for”, but this relates to information that has already been published, rather than a requirement for pre-publication contact.

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 story
• it may be inappropriate to contact the person
• it may be impractical to contact everyone involved in the article.

"

 

 

So please tell me. Which of the points do you think absolves the need for reaching out?

 

I would say that "If an article contains personal or serious allegations or claims against an individual, it may be appropriate and necessary to give that individual an opportunity to respond to these claims, or to deny them if they wish." Indicates that it would have been appropriate to reach out.

 

I would argue the persons comments are already in the public domain for the most part.

Edit: This is also backed up by the statement given by Linus, which is mostly a reitteration of statements given previously. The reception by the users is quite poor in that regard and therefore voiced by users here.

[E-Waster]

I’ve been an LTT viewer for about 8 years. I’m not a regular viewer of GN.

 

however,
 

Linus’ attitude and actions over the Billet labs situation absolutely stunk. He was 100% in the wrong and no amount of his stubbornness & delusion over that will change it. Though, Linus’ attitude in general when it comes to handling criticism needs a ton of work.

 

Doing a knowingly inaccurate and crap review then smugly claiming on the podcast that it was a ‘terrible product and nobody should buy it’ is unacceptable, not to mention auctioning it off and making a few bucks on the side.

 

The video quality has also taken a nosedive. While the main channel is still somewhat acceptable (for the most part), channels like Techlinked, Techquickie and ShortCircuit feel like 0 effort and panache goes into them. 

 

What Linus fails to realise is that LMG is now a large corporation with a huge amount of influence and connections in the industry. LMG has a responsibility to treat smaller businesses fairly and post information that isn’t misleading. 
 

Large corporations in general have a pattern of bullying, morally unethical and self-serving practices. I really hope LMG doesn’t go down that road. 
 

P.s. I have little faith in Labs now. You can throw as much money at a testing environment as you like, but if your graphs, data and testing methods are crap then nobody will take you seriously. 

[FUTDomi]

3 minutes ago, d0kt0ra said:

I don't usually write here but for me, GN used the controversy to hit hard and intentionally on LTT. It's not that LTT is not fucked up their reviews, which in my opinion they should stop doing in their main channel and move all reviewing to another channel LTT LABS or something where they can use properly their labs for real reviews. LTT should be an entertaining channel because its success is based on its entertainment value. 

About GN - since Labs were announced GN's stance on LTT has significantly changed. First, they overblow the backpack issue. There are a lot of other tech reviewers who are quite incompetent in their reviews and rely strongly on friendships with sponsors like JayzTwoCents but GN has shed a single word for him. GN is clearly exploiting the community's dissatisfaction with LTT for their personal vendetta because probably they feel threatened by Labs. If LTT Labs start working properly it will make most of GN work pointless since Labs could review better and more thoroughly with proper management.

Note that when ASUS was burning AMD cpus they reached both AMD and ASUS, the same with 12v connector and Nvidia, the MSI saga and the list goes on. If they haven't reached LTT for comment on this video it's not because of objective journalism but because they want to create controversy. 

+100

 

They also contacted AMD for the DLSS drama thing. When he wants to make journalism, it shows.

[DeerDK]

4 minutes ago, Alvin853 said:

GN did not make allegations or claims, they mostly just summarized facts that are already available on the internet for everyone to see.

 

 

"Trump indicted" is a factual statement.

 

"Trump did this and that against this person and conducts in ethically questionably practices" is, unless well reported, direct quotation ect. allegations and claims.

GN is not reporting on others reporting. They are breaking the "news" themselves.

[ShadowedFox]

15 minutes ago, Polderviking said:

Yeah one a week for a broad tech channel would probably be insufficient, but I get why GN sampled that "what's it's like working for ltt" video because if everybody asks for more breathing room in their workflow you've got a workload problem and are too much on the ragged edge of what you can put out.

The thing is, their videos have steadily been declining in my opinion in terms of quality standards. The older videos used to actually be interesting, secret shopper, scrap yard wars etc. Now I've looked his channel after not watching for a few months. He's got

• "How many USBs can you plug in"
• "Facebook sold me this antivirus USB" (Despite it not actually been Facebook that sold it, nice clickbait.) 
• "10 steam features I love"
• "I bought ten of the weirdest phones". 

Honestly he might as well be Austin at this point making repeat "I bought FAKE tech on Temu". Its like he's knocking out Buzzfeed countdown videos compared to his older content. Ez clicks I guess...

[pretree]

1 minute ago, FUTDomi said:

+100

 

They also contacted AMD for the DLSS drama thing. When he wants to make journalism, it shows.

He asked for comment on that because they were just allegations of intent. The LTT thing isn't, they're issues that are present in the public domain.

[bandainamcofan]

Just now, DeerDK said:

How would it be a ethical violation?!? 

 

The simple fact they know each other personally. It can appear improper to report on someone you know, and reaching out to them might alter attempting to report straight facts. Again, I don't know why GN didn't reach out for comment. But they were never under any obligation to.

[NuDimon]

13 hours ago, xzvf said:

Data issues aside; @LinusTech Regarding the Billet Labs situation, could you please publicly state and justify the monetary compensation paid out to Billet Labs for the “loss” of their prototype? What steps are you taking to prevent such issues in the future?

Clearly they have to finalize any auction items well before the pre-expo crunch, if they're doing it again.

And imho, they should get the prototype back, compensate the buyer well, and then send the prototype back to Billet Labs after properly doing the tests again on the card it was intended for. He personally owe them as much for his own blunder, let alone for the way the company screwed them over.

[GameFox]

1 minute ago, E-Waster said:

P.s. I have little faith in Labs now. You can throw as much money at a testing environment as you like, but if your graphs, data and testing methods are crap then nobody will take you seriously. 

Do you believe if LTT took more time between videos, they would be able to fix Labs as a whole? When each of the employees addressed that they feel the videos are rushed, that should have been a warning sign for Linus to step back and consider the importance of accuracy rather than pushing out videos for profit.

[Needfuldoer]

"Whoops, oh well, we'll do better next time" isn't an answer when it's already been the answer several times in a row.