Yet more misleading reporting from LTT. (And still no transparent issue tracker to report these things.)

[itshurleytime]

2 hours ago, moatmote said:

Except that's not what I claimed at all. God people can't read. 

Oh, sorry. I guess saying they were suggesting there is a link between LEDs and permanent eye damage is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING than saying they are claiming normal monitors do eye damage. Not a totally pedantic point to try to make yourself feel better by implying other people are stupid, that's for sure.

Have you considered that maybe you missed the point of the video?
 

[divito]

5 minutes ago, itshurleytime said:

Oh, sorry. I guess saying they were suggesting there is a link between LEDs and permanent eye damage is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING than saying they are claiming normal monitors do eye damage. Not a totally pedantic point to try to make yourself feel better by implying other people are stupid, that's for sure.

Have you considered that maybe you missed the point of the video?
 

He definitely can't consider that. He's using his flawed inference to prove something that was never stated or attempted by the video; there's no hope.

[moatmote]

10 minutes ago, itshurleytime said:

Oh, sorry. I guess saying they were suggesting there is a link between LEDs and permanent eye damage is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING than saying they are claiming normal monitors do eye damage. Not a totally pedantic point to try to make yourself feel better by implying other people are stupid, that's for sure.

I'm not claiming they're saying that either. Are you incapable of reading? 

[Avocado Diaboli]

5 minutes ago, moatmote said:

I'm not claiming they're saying that either. Are you incapable of reading? 

Are those your only two modes; arguing semantics and accusing others of illiteracy? Or is this how you cope when people call you a pedant?

[moatmote]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Are those your only two modes; arguing semantics and accusing others of illiteracy? Or is this how you cope when people call you a pedant?

No, it's my response when people tell me I'm saying things I never said. 

[itshurleytime]

53 minutes ago, moatmote said:

No, it's my response when people tell me I'm saying things I never said. 

About your implications about things you think others are implying...

[wanderingfool2]

20 hours ago, moatmote said:

However, the well-informed or critically thinking among you may have already caught the problem with this section: It doesn't actually answer the questions they asked at the begining. Are traditional monitors permanently damaging your vision and is E Ink the "better solution"? All they've done here is establish that E Ink doesn't help with nearsightedness and digital eye strain.

You seem to be missing the generally point people are making.  Claiming the light is what damages the eyes is pretty much the claim of the product (just like the whole trend of people saying blue light is bad).  While it is a hyperbole/sensationalized, the fact that they talked about eyestrain and such does actually address the point of "damaging"; as eye strain is the one that's so often what's attributed as damage to the eye.

 

It can't even really be attributed to misleading either; as it was addressed under the concept of eye strain and the other claims.  So yea, address the claims that it reduces eye strain and such does actually address whether or not the lights damage your eyes.

 

 

With that said, I think you are fighting the wrong type of battle.  A better battle would be whether or not they ACTUALLY looked into the concept of e-ink vs monitors and their effects on the eye.  Their cited works don't actually properly address the claim...whether or not you perceive it an LED screen actually pulses.

 

While this one is more anecdotal, I know for a fact that if the brightness on a monitor is cranked up too high; my eyes to fatigue a lot quicker and I have to look away from the monitor more often.

 

For some factual things though (and I do think this is where LMG fails to even do the basic bit of research)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873942/

Quote

Results from both objective (Blinks per second) and subjective (Visual Fatigue Scale) measures suggested that reading on the LCD (Kindle Fire HD) triggers higher visual fatigue with respect to both the E-ink (Kindle Paperwhite) and the paper book

 

There's more, but I think I've actually looked up enough stuff that I might make my own post in the official forum; since their lack of even trying to compare shows their lack of critical thinking I believe.

[wONKEyeYEs]

1 hour ago, moatmote said:

No, it's my response when people tell me I'm saying things I never said. 

You seem to be really invested in the opinions of people you don't even know.

Just let it go and try doing something constructive, like taking a walk.

It just doesn't matter.

[Retro_R]

To be honest, after reading the post and like letting it sit in. I feel OP has some points, but i kinda have to agree with most of the people here. We need to hold LTT (and other media outlets) accountable, and i feel a "issue tracker" is a decent idea. Although reading through this post just sounds like someone who combed through every second and was just waiting to attack the point in the video.

 

I mean, were you thinking about buying this monitor after watching the video? I doubt it, and I'm pretty sure 99.9% of people watching the video also came to the same conclusion. Even if it was some magic solution for eye care or whatever, i'm pretty sure no one would watch that video and think to themselves right after, "i have to buy this monitor." Like, no. to be fair, i haven't watched the whole video but from like the 3 or so minutes i did watch the conclusion i got from the video is that they weren't really recommend anyone buy it either. Just a weird monitor. And in that sense, does it really have to be 100% accurate? I don't think so.

 

However, the "baiting to make ppl watch" is a valid point. Although you can really say that too about most channels like this. Look at someone like mr. beast. Do you think he makes all his videos with the most pure of intentions and doesn't ever bait people to keep watching the video? Fuck no. I mean, in grade school (at least where i'm at) they tell you to start an essay with a jarring hook to catch the readers attention. Is it completely ethical (at least in this case)? prob not, but like so is a lot of youtube videos that use this type of thing. Would you rather them walk you slowly through each point and just present the info and nothing else? No. And I don't really think something like this deserves it, as i said before i really don't think theres a ton of people who are going to buy this either way.

 

I'm going to say as i try to end this, I didn't really make every point i wanna make precisly bc tbh i rlly just don't give enough of a fuck to write a whole essay response to this but i just wanted to get my basic thoughts out. So please don't like take everything i say as like this is 100% my beliefs fuck u or whatever i just need to say what i want. So to end this off, i'm also going to quote myself.

 

Quote

pp fart doodoo

 

[Erioch]

Guys, guys, guys, you're all pretty.

[aminit]

Quote

Don't mind me, just passing by and joining in on the latest trends

 

[Skipple]

33 minutes ago, Retro_R said:

pp fart doodoo

[goodtofufriday]

[Retro_R]

1 hour ago, Skipple said:

ik, im just him

[moatmote]

2 hours ago, Retro_R said:

Although reading through this post just sounds like someone who combed through every second and was just waiting to attack the point in the video.

All I can say to this really is that I find it wild how often people attach negative connotations to being thorough and comprehensive. Like sorry for doing my due diligence to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding or misrepresenting the source material; claiming they did or said something when they didn't, or claiming they didn't do or say something when they did? Sorry for making sure I was building my argument for how this video could be potentially misleading only from the facts that exist and what was or wasn't in the video? How else do you expect someone to approach this. It's clear that a good number of people here are going to read what they want to read instead of what was written, and jump on the "ltt did nothing wrong" bandwagon regardless of how any criticism against LTT is structured.

 

Besides that, I agree with everything else you've said. Though I do want to clarify that my issue wasn't with them using bait to make people watch. It's that the video is structured in a way that baits people towards a particular conclusion, despite them never explicitly drawing a connection. What's below goes into that a bit more, but isn't a response to you specifically, but rather continuing what kept being brought up earlier.

 

The point I make above is also why I find all the "you claimed LTT claimed that <something I never accused LTT of claiming>" replies annoying as hell, as I was very particular about ensuring I'm not claiming they said anything they didn't actually say.

 

People can't seem to understand that saying

Quote

It suggests that there may be a link between light-emitting displays and permanent eye damage.

is not saying in any way that LTT is claiming there is a link. It's saying that the video is suggesting to the audience that a link might be present; and being positioned at the begining of the video, it sets the tone of what follows as "let's investigate if that claim has any merit".

 

And then, as I said in the first post, when they don't ultimately follow through with that expectation, but instead shift focus to debunking claims about digital eye strain, some people will naturally assume this actually is following through (when it's not) and attribute the lack of protections against digital eye strain in either monitor to mean "even through this display doesn't blast you with light, it could still cause permanent eye damage", which is not a logically valid conclusion, but it's an easy assumption to make after watching the video.

 

Essentially, their failure to mention permanent eye damage ever again leaves a hole, and the audience will fill that hole with the closest thing they can find, which is the remarks about both types of displays still causing digital eye strain.

 

The fact that so many people here couldn't differentiate between that and me saying "LTT claims light-emitting displays cause permanent eye damage" more or less makes my point for me that the audience often doesn't have the nuance to identify that they haven't explicitly made a connection here and will naturally conflate the two issues.

 

@XNOR makes a good point in the other thread about this video in the releases section:

Quote

I'm also still not a fan of the conclusion-less videos with the sudden ending. Maybe it's good for the algorithm, I'm not in a position to judge, but it's definitely jarring and negatively impacts the overall quality of the video. Videos don't always have to follow convention if it can do better, but this ain't that.

Perhaps if this video had a proper conclusion, they could have elaborated more on this to avoid the potential confusion. 

[Emirbz]

I'll say it again.... Is Ltt, it's just entertainment and it's going to be like that, always, no matter what they said. Relax people and enjoy the ride... Nothing serious here 

[merch22]

23 hours ago, moatmote said:

How have you entirely missed the point? I never claimed that LTT claimed that light from monitors permanently hurt your eyes. I said that the statement sets an expectation for an answer in the video. And by not actually directly addressing those "what if"s in the conclusion, and instead answering a slightly different question, it's very easy for the layman to conflate the two.

 

After watching the intro, it's not hard to imagine that many people will be thinking "Oh I wonder if light from monitors is actually a problem that could lead to permanent vision damage and if E Ink is the answer. Let me keep watching to find out!" And upon hearing "E Ink still causes eye strain" at the end, reaching the conclusion "Oh they said E Ink still causes eye strain because of <stuff about focusing>, so the light wasn't the culprit and both technologies could lead to permanent damage to my vision because they both cause digital eye strain."

 

Is that a logically sound conclusion? No. Is that the conclusion this video baits people towards? Yes.

Smoking is bad for your lungs, but you can get lung disease without smoking. Drinking is bad for the whole body, but people get sick whether they drink or not. 
Staring at a monitor for a long time is bad for the eyes, but some people have bad eyesight even without staring at a monitor for a long time.
This is all common sense, what is the need to prove it?
Do you still want human experimentation?

 

This is far from the purpose of the video.

[moatmote]

42 minutes ago, merch22 said:

Smoking is bad for your lungs, but you can get lung disease without smoking. Drinking is bad for the whole body, but people get sick whether they drink or not. 
Staring at a monitor for a long time is bad for the eyes, but some people have bad eyesight even without staring at a monitor for a long time.
This is all common sense, what is the need to prove it?
Do you still want human experimentation?

 

This is far from the purpose of the video.

That has literally nothing to do with what's being said here.

[haobuhao]

Legit made an account to say this genuinely the worst thing I’ve ever read. I’m on GN’s side 100% but it’s legitimately both shameful and embarrassing to see OP reply over and over digging himself down further and further each time. What is going through your head lol? So vindictive man

[merch22]

1 hour ago, merch22 said:

Smoking is bad for your lungs, but you can get lung disease without smoking. Drinking is bad for the whole body, but people get sick whether they drink or not. 
Staring at a monitor for a long time is bad for the eyes, but some people have bad eyesight even without staring at a monitor for a long time.
This is all common sense, what is the need to prove it?
Do you still want human experimentation?

 

This is far from the purpose of the video.

 

46 minutes ago, moatmote said:

That has literally nothing to do with what's being said here.

I was merely pointing out your missing the point. You are basically asking for data to back up some of the common sense that Linus uses in this video.
The video you point to is not a challenge to common sense about the effect of monitors on the eyes, and if you think that common sense is incorrect and should be excluded from the paper, then you should prove common sense wrong on your part, Professor.

[Legitsu]

stop cherry picking and hoping for apples

blue light is bad for your eyes nobody has ever questioned that

e-ink displays don't emit blue light

you really need a 45m labs video to explain to you WHY that a monitor that doesn't have a LED matrix nor backlight doesn't emit blue light?

if you need a video to explain that then you are a guy fawkings idiots and any knowledge dropped would be wasted on you 

 

this is not a video that requires a deep data-driven dive

you are looking for problems to cause drama

to that I say the following:

piss off 

 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Legitsu said:

stop cherry picking and hoping for apples

blue light is bad for your eyes nobody has ever questioned that

e-ink displays don't emit blue light

you really need a 45m labs video to explain to you WHY that a monitor that doesn't have a LED matrix nor backlight doesn't emit blue light?

if you need a video to explain that then you are a guy fawkings idiots and any knowledge dropped would be wasted on you 

If your conclusion is blue light is bad from the video; then you better rewatch it.

 

They literally cited sources in regards to the blue light stuff being not a thing (which in this case it was generally right in that amount of blue light emitted isn't large enough to cause more damage).

 

With that said, a lot of their cited works don't convey really address the general comparison between eINK and LCD/OLED technology.

[moatmote]

5 hours ago, Legitsu said:

stop cherry picking and hoping for apples

blue light is bad for your eyes nobody has ever questioned that

e-ink displays don't emit blue light

you really need a 45m labs video to explain to you WHY that a monitor that doesn't have a LED matrix nor backlight doesn't emit blue light?

if you need a video to explain that then you are a guy fawkings idiots and any knowledge dropped would be wasted on you 

 

this is not a video that requires a deep data-driven dive

you are looking for problems to cause drama

to that I say the following:

piss off 

 

What? I never once asked for any deep dives or 45-minute-long videos. What's with all the people who supposedly read what I wrote and walked away thinking I said a bunch of things I specifically avoided saying?

[moatmote]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

With that said, a lot of their cited works don't convey really address the general comparison between eINK and LCD/OLED technology.

This. The intro of the video sets up the premise that a comparison is going to be made ("Is E Ink a safer alternative to traditional displays, assuming traditional displays can cause permanent damage in the first place?"). They then never actually answer that (nor do they ever point out that that assumption isn't supported by facts), but in the absence of a direct answer to that, they debunk a bunch of claims that are being made specifically about E Ink displays (such as that they also cause strain), which—in the context of the video's intro—can seem to the casual viewer that the answer to the intro's question is "no", and that E Ink also can permanently damage your eyes. It's not a logically sound conclusion strictly based on what was said in the video, but by asking one question and answering another in its place, the video baits viewers to that conclusion, and that is the only problem I have with it.

 

I've never once claimed LMG had some nefarious motive; nor did I ever once claim they said something that they didn't, or didn't say something that they did. I simply said the video is structured poorly and in a way that could mislead viewers to a bad conclusion.

[moatmote]

11 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While it is a hyperbole/sensationalized, the fact that they talked about eyestrain and such does actually address the point of "damaging"; as eye strain is the one that's so often what's attributed as damage to the eye.

 

It can't even really be attributed to misleading either; as it was addressed under the concept of eye strain and the other claims.  So yea, address the claims that it reduces eye strain and such does actually address whether or not the lights damage your eyes.

There are multiple studies that have shown that the effects of strain from "digital eye strain" are temporary and do not cause any meaningful permanent damage. 

 

Even for myopia, recent studies have shifted focus to lack of regular exposure to sunlight (or any sufficiently bright light source) as the leading cause, something (not coincidentally) very common for those who stare at monitors or phones for extended periods to experience.