Real talk about Framework

[Nachmanowicz]

I'm not a rich ppl groveler. But I do believe Linus is a good person with good intentions. I'm a long, loooooong time LMG content consumer and I like it. Even during the dark times of the whole Gamer Nexus debacle I stayed with Linus, where all my criticism comes from a place of love and appreciation. 

Having said that, I do not think its ethical for Linus to be making content about Framework and posting it on LMG. I'm not saying he's asking nobody to make it look good, to fluff it or pre-censoring what could look bad. I genuinely think he believes that content would be LMG worthy even if he didn't have a stake in it. 

Having said that, I don't think it matters, because the conflict of interest is still there. There is a workaround to make it all okay: post all that content on Framework's channel, instead of any of LMG's. I know its gonna get a lot less views, but its the only way to avoid the conflict of interest while making the content. 

 

 

Name of Brand: Framework

 

 

Description of your issue: Conflict of interest

 

 

Have you tried solving your issue through the brand's customer support channel? If so, what was the result?: The issue is with Linus media group, doing it now

 

 

What would an ideal resolution of your issue look like?: No more Framework content on Linus Media Group's channels. 

 

 

[whispous]

He states his investment up front before every framework topic is discussed.

[Millios]

Other than the fact LTT have the right to post whatever they want and deem is right for their channel

 

LTT doesnt really have a conflict of interest (at least like others) cause they have even made videos chastising their own store where they γετ secret buyers give their genuine report

They also are upfront about Linus being a major investor in them

[Nachmanowicz]

Look up the definition of conflict of interest, guys. You don't have to be biased in order for it to exist. 

 

Stating the conflic of interest doesn't dissolve it neither.

[Poinkachu]

I just think of it as a paid review.

Better than an undisclosed paid review though.

[manikyath]

linus has some personal money invested in framework, because he believes in the message of the brand, and wants to support that message.

 

he's not a 'major' invester for framework, dollar amount wise, nor does he expect any ROI from said investment.

 

aside from that, the conflict as you outline isnt with framework related content, it is with reviews of products competing with framework offerings.

 

now, i've got a news flash for you.. none of these reviews are written by linus, and none of the people who write them even have to report to linus in the business structure.

 

it's really no different than if for example plouffe would hold some HP stock.

[Nachmanowicz]

17 minutes ago, manikyath said:

linus has some personal money invested in framework, because he believes in the message of the brand, and wants to support that message.

 

he's not a 'major' invester for framework, dollar amount wise, nor does he expect any ROI from said investment.

 

aside from that, the conflict as you outline isnt with framework related content, it is with reviews of products competing with framework offerings.

 

now, i've got a news flash for you.. none of these reviews are written by linus, and none of the people who write them even have to report to linus in the business structure.

 

it's really no different than if for example plouffe would hold some HP stock.

We don't know the percentage of the company that his money got. That much isn't divulged. What's his personal goal with that is also irrelevant. Or else anybody could say that they've invested that as a hobby or passion project or whatever and they get out scot free. 

 

And your argument that he doesn't write or are reported / ran by him is kinda naive. He owns the company.

[Kilrah]

You might want to go watch some old WAN shows form before Linus did his investment, all of this was lengthily discussed, explained and ultimately decided on. 

 

[Poinkachu]

34 minutes ago, Nachmanowicz said:

We don't know the percentage of the company that his money got. That much isn't divulged. What's his personal goal with that is also irrelevant. Or else anybody could say that they've invested that as a hobby or passion project or whatever and they get out scot free. 

 

And your argument that he doesn't write or are reported / ran by him is kinda naive. He owns the company.

What if he also has NVIDIA, AMD, and Google stocks ?

[Nachmanowicz]

Can he reasonably influence the value of these multi billion dollar companies that he would own less than half a percent? Can he reasonably influence the value of a smaller company he owns a substantial amount of? 

2 hours ago, Kilrah said:

You might want to go watch some old WAN shows form before Linus did his investment, all of this was lengthily discussed, explained and ultimately decided on. 

 

This answers nothing. All your post is saying is "trust 'em bro" based on "stuff that was said".

[Lurick]

He disclosed that he made an investment (about $250K) into the company and continues to remind everyone on all laptop videos. He very well could just dump cash into a company and never tell anyone and then go around promoting them. Linus could do that with any company really, how do we know he hasn't based on that logic? Any other sponsor, feature, etc could be him trying to drive sales into a company invested in he didn't tell us about.

 

At a certain point you have to objectively look at the review, check out other reviews, and ask yourself "Is LTT's review extra positive/negative in a way that would promote his investment?" and at no point have I seen an LTT laptop review or anything and looked at another review and said "Yah, LTT is talking this other company down because Framework".

Hell, they even partner with Dell on the WAN show laptops and whatnot. If he was shilling Framework why not use them exclusively and partner with them instead?

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, Nachmanowicz said:

We don't know the percentage of the company that his money got.

assume so low it's not expressed in 'percentage'.

 

i think that is what's confusing people... the investment is basicly neglible beyond the 'putting your money where your mouth is' regarding repairable/upgradeable laptops.

[Nachmanowicz]

9 minutes ago, manikyath said:

assume so low it's not expressed in 'percentage'.

 

i think that is what's confusing people... the investment is basicly neglible beyond the 'putting your money where your mouth is' regarding repairable/upgradeable laptops.

Based on what? it was a very young scrappy operation when he invested the money.

[Raz89]

5 hours ago, Nachmanowicz said:

He owns the company.

is not the argument you might think it is. While he owns the company he don't run it so no one is forced to go trough him for anything anymore.  With the structure LMG has now it's easy to cut him off from anything related to framework if needed. It should also be noted that he still takes money from other laptop manufacturers like Dell who is the laptop partner of the WAN show.

 

Lets face it, with your logic they should stop doing laptop reviews altogheter becuse of his investment becuse of the conflict of intresst.

[TempestCatto]

9 hours ago, whispous said:

He states his investment up front before every framework topic is discussed.

To add to this, he (or anyone on screen presenting in the moment) will disclose his Framework investment before talking about other laptops. Way early on, when this first started happening, he would even say (out loud) that he will review whatever laptop he's holding the same way, making sure to be unbiased and fair. These days, it's merely implied.

 

They don't review laptops as much anymore, but all the ones I've watched since the investment, I have not felt as though they were biased in any capacity. They've always been diligent about listing pros and cons, specs, and drag race results. Linus has definitely praised other laptops for being very good, and even recommended them (there's an HP that comes to mind due to pro repairabilty).

 

If he was so hellbent on sucking off Framework, he wouldn't have stuck it out more than a few days during the Macbook challenge. 

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to General Discussion

 

Framework is not LMG sponsor. Sponsor complaints subforum is specifically for sponsor discussions. Issues about LMG content are good at General Discussion. 

[starsmine]

Like what is the opposite of a sponser.

Linus pays framework, not the other way around. 

[Doobeedoo]

I really wouldn't call it a big deal really, there are other issues rather, but that’s beside the point. As long it's all transparent it's fine and people are informed.

Would be good to see to get some extra ideas as far as specs for such a laptop being modular and all. I know it's also lower volume and specs are not everything, but still even with it's pricey for what it is, at least in EU. Not enough ports really, point is to configure it and have option to switch moduels, not have many extra you switch regularly though.

I'd like to see a larger model with extra modules added. The chip they have for desktop machine would be neat as an option. Or something new that is less AI focused price wise with that chip. Display options too like OLED would be great.

[atxcyclist]

On 7/1/2025 at 5:59 AM, Nachmanowicz said:

We don't know the percentage of the company that his money got. That much isn't divulged. What's his personal goal with that is also irrelevant. Or else anybody could say that they've invested that as a hobby or passion project or whatever and they get out scot free. 

 

And your argument that he doesn't write or are reported / ran by him is kinda naive. He owns the company.

$200k isn’t going to be close to a majority shareholder position in a computer manufacturer. A local bicycle shop takes more of an investment than that to be the majority shareholder.

[wanderingfool2]

16 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

$200k isn’t going to be close to a majority shareholder position in a computer manufacturer. A local bicycle shop takes more of an investment than that to be the majority shareholder.

While it's not close to majority shareholder, it's still a large enough position that it should be disclosed; as Linus has a financial interest within the company.

 

The initial seed round raised $9 million (H1, which included Linus), so a $225k still represents 2.5% of their initial seed.  

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/466889-59#timeline
Not sure how accurate this is, but the numbers seems to match roughly based on the leaked slides etc.

 

If those are to believed (take with a grain of salt), Linus would be the owner of 124,309 shared.  It means he owns ~0.6% of Framework...not a lot, but it's still not a trivial amount.

 

A major point though in why things should be disclosed etc. is that Linus has a non-trivial financial stake in the company.  Seed was apparently 25% of the ownership, series A and series A1 I don't know (can't find any additional information)...but it appears as though Series A brought in $18 million, and Series A1 brought in $17 mill (maybe).  Now I can tell you now that the valuation per share would have to increase based on Series A and Series A1 (otherwise if we equate 1% share/ $360,000, we end up with $(9,000,000 + $18,000,000 + $17,000,000) / $360,000 = 122% sold).  So clearly his $225k investment has increased in value a non-trivial amount if you believe at least the valuations (which should be taken again with a non-trivial amount).  If the numbers are to believed, you can assume the founders of Framework have likely kept their shares, so just saying...while as a whole $225k might not be a lot it still could potentially have a menial impact.

 

On 7/1/2025 at 1:43 AM, Nachmanowicz said:

 

Having said that, I don't think it matters, because the conflict of interest is still there. There is a workaround to make it all okay: post all that content on Framework's channel, instead of any of LMG's. I know its gonna get a lot less views, but its the only way to avoid the conflict of interest while making the content. 

Proper disclosure really is the best way to go.  Sure there would be a conflict of interest, but if there is proper disclosure it doesn't matter...and by proper disclosure I mean visual graphics, and them saying it at the very least at the beginning, but also at the end.

 

On 7/1/2025 at 7:53 AM, manikyath said:

assume so low it's not expressed in 'percentage'.

 

i think that is what's confusing people... the investment is basicly neglible beyond the 'putting your money where your mouth is' regarding repairable/upgradeable laptops.

Honestly though, I wouldn't call 2.5% of the initial seed round a negligible amount...especially when getting in at the ground floor can be highly profitable if the company succeeds.   (Sure there is high risk, but there is also high reward)

 

e.g. Tesla Series A (while no concrete specifics) seems to have the ballpark share price at $0.50.  So lets say a $225k investment (which would represent less percentage shares than what FrameWork was), would equate to $7.6 million at the IPO (or in the billions if kept to this point).  So yea, high risk...but potential for really high rewards.

 

The thing is as well, LMG has enough pull as well to essentially help out "smaller" companies that are just building...being a tech influencer pushing Framework more gives it more exposure to the masses etc and starts to change the company into a company that people might think is cool but worried about if they will be anything into a company that people are willing to purchase the product of.

 

While it is also Linus himself who has money in it, it's muddy in the sense that Linus owns LMG which makes it sort of impossible to separate the two...including the fact that Framework in their slides has apparently not made the distinction.

 

On 7/1/2025 at 1:49 AM, whispous said:

He states his investment up front before every framework topic is discussed.

No, no he doesn't.  There are examples of him not disclosing it beforehand  (I can't be bothered looking through all the framework ones now, so here is a Short Circuit one where LMG has to still legally disclose it).

LMG still casually violating the legally required disclosure laws (them tucking it 10 lines down in the description is no legal disclosure that is required).

 

I say this because as a tech influencer Linus/LMG HAS to legally disclose any "material connection" .

 

https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/types-deceptive-marketing-practices/influencer-marketing-and-competition-act

Quote

The deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Competition Act apply to anyone who is promoting a product, service, or any business interest. So, as an influencer, the Act applies to you.

You should disclose all material connections you have with the business, product or service you are promoting.

Your connections may be “material” if they have the potential to affect how consumers evaluate your independence from a brand. 

As can be seen in the above video from 2 weeks ago, it is promoting a product...and by definition they have a material connection (again LTT is mentioned in Framework slides, and Linus is very much the owner of LTT and a non-trivial amount of shares in Framework).

 

Quote

Here are some best practices you should follow when disclosing these connections:

Make sure that your disclosures are as visible as possible.
Your disclosures should be prominent. Your audience may not see them if they are in a long caption, group of hashtags, or a profile bio.
Your disclosures should be visible on all devices without having to click or tap a button to expand the post.
If you share your content on multiple social media platforms, make sure your disclosures are on each one.

Clearly the video violates the two bolded.  It's not prominent, AND it's not visible on all devices...you literally have to click more in order to see it.

[manikyath]

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

LMG still casually violating the legally required disclosure laws (them tucking it 10 lines down in the description is no legal disclosure that is required).

let me ask you this; what's more a conflict of interest? linus owning a (by your own math) less than 1% stake in framework, a laptop manufacturer with a very specific niche, with no expectation of profiting off said investment.

 

or the channel being actively sponsored by ASUS while also reviewing both ASUS laptops and laptops of other brands.

 

there isnt "no" conflict of interest, but the potential conflict of interest is VERY small if it's very likely that linus wasnt involved in the example video at all, nor is he the direct or indirect report of anyone who was.

 

also, what is the result of said conflict of interest? linus being disappointed that the latest macbook isnt repairable? calling BS on dell's latest attempt of an upgradeable laptop with front-to-back proprietary hardware that they "totally commit" on providing an upgrade path for, and they then kill it after making "a single upgrade path"?

 

it really feels like the entire debate forgot the train of thought that came with the original decision to toss money at framework, and everyone has just defaulted to "rich man greed".

[wanderingfool2]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

let me ask you this; what's more a conflict of interest? linus owning a (by your own math) less than 1% stake in framework, a laptop manufacturer with a very specific niche, with no expectation of profiting off said investment.

 

or the channel being actively sponsored by ASUS while also reviewing both ASUS laptops and laptops of other brands.

I've always been very vocal that LMG doesn't follow the current disclosure laws (not just in regards to Framework)

 

I do think though getting stuck up on the less than 1% is a folly.  Again, if you invested $225k into Tesla during the Series A (not even the seed), you would have less than the Framework %, but at IPO you would still have made millions.

 

Based on the numbers that I could find, which I do have to take with a grain of salt, my current estimate is that Linus' investment would be worth about double (if not more).

 

I do think that LMG should be stating that manufacturers are a sponsor of products that are being reviewed/highlighted etc.  And I've even discussed that I think LMG is irresponsible in the amount they disclose/what they consider a "sponsor".

 

With that said as well, there is also a difference between a sponsor, and the owner of the company being a partial owner of a product they are reviewing/talking about.  There are separate laws that actually apply to situations of ownership/conflict of interest laws in regards etc.

 

19 minutes ago, manikyath said:

there isnt "no" conflict of interest, but the potential conflict of interest is VERY small if it's very likely that linus wasnt involved in the example video at all, nor is he the direct or indirect report of anyone who was.

 

also, what is the result of said conflict of interest? linus being disappointed that the latest macbook isnt repairable? calling BS on dell's latest attempt of an upgradeable laptop with front-to-back proprietary hardware that they "totally commit" on providing an upgrade path for, and they then kill it after making "a single upgrade path"?

Doesn't matter if the gripe would be the same with or without it, you still legally have to disclose it because there is a conflict of interest because LMG can do their LMG type of thing and make claims that ignore key facts etc.

 

The purpose of why you disclose is because it gives the user adequate opportunity to realize that there might be a financial motive behind it.  e.g.  The Toyota Mirai video, where they failed to disclose all the stuff they got from Toyota and literally the video had misconceptions/misinformation about EV's etc (which was part of Toyota's talking abouts)...yet in that video no mention about the linkage to Toyota.

 

To put Linus' words here "small but significant stake"

"this move creates an enormous conflict of interest"

That is Linus' own words that he stated.

 

There is a subtle but important distinction between ownership conflict of interest and sponsorship conflict of interest.  They both exist, but typically ownership conflict of interested is weighted more.

 

29 minutes ago, manikyath said:

it really feels like the entire debate forgot the train of thought that came with the original decision to toss money at framework, and everyone has just defaulted to "rich man greed".

No, it's about the whole attitude that Linus went into this.  Linus literally claiming he doesn't need to legally disclose (I think this was prior to him buying it like on a wan show or something) but he's said similar in the forums afterwards, and Linus talking about being transparent etc.  And yet after investing in $225k he can't be bothered to even think about the rules that might apply to him by owning a company like that.  It's not about the "greed", I think putting money into Framework is a good thing but just because I think it's a good thing doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be handled in the appropriate manor.

 

Like legally he probably can't own stock companies, like NVIDIA etc. in his role unless he discloses it (and even then there would be technically blackout periods in which he wouldn't be able to purchase/sell stocks of it due to "insider information").  It's why when you work in a certain industry you simply don't do it, or accept that by doing so you have to disclose...yet Linus seems to not done his homework on it.

 

It's akin to the "The Tax Rant." video, it seems Linus intentionally goes out of his way to dismiss what people are saying by effectively saying they don't know what they are talking about when in reality he effectively pushed a video that is just as bad misinformation

 

 

Another example of a poor disclosure that doesn't match with the Canadian Disclosure

 

2 times investment is mentioned, but only in the middle of the video and at the very end of it

[atxcyclist]

20 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

2 times investment is mentioned, but only in the middle of the video and at the very end of it

And that’s…totally fine.
 

Almost every content creator I see on YouTube discloses their sponsorships during an ad read, it’s very rare anyone puts that as the first thing in their videos outside of a overlay note, because then it’s seen as just an advertisement. Linus has been critical of things with Framework, LTT secret shopped them and critiqued the experience, and it wasn’t completely positive. You’re being too critical, if the investment is stated then that’s what is asked for by law. LMG has dropped plenty of sponsors quite publicly when they screwed-up, and that seems very transparent.

 

Also, if I’m not mistaken it is Linus himself that invested and not LMG, which makes a big difference. If Linus isn’t editorializing a video, the writer of the video, nor appearing in the video, then it isn’t an investor reviewing a product it’s someone else. Look at how many people are on staff at LMG, do you think any time an Apple product is reviewed and someone unassociated in the company has Apple stock, LMG has to disclose it? No, they don’t.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

Almost every content creator I see on YouTube discloses their sponsorships during an ad read, it’s very rare anyone puts that as the first thing in their videos outside of a overlay note, because then it’s seen as just an advertisement. Linus has been critical of things with Framework, LTT secret shopped them and critiqued the experience, and it wasn’t completely positive. You’re being too critical, if the investment is stated then that’s what is asked for by law. LMG has dropped plenty of sponsors quite publicly when they screwed-up, and that seems very transparent.

Just because there are a lot of people who do it doesn't make it right to do it.  Again it's clearly laid out on the Canadian Competition Bureau in regards to what has to be disclosed.  Saying it as a one off one liner in the middle, and then at the end isn't proper when the first half of a video already states a lot of things about it.  It's why any responsible YouTuber discloses material connections prior to talking about what they are going to talk about.

 

Stating in the middle wouldn't satisfy the law, but at the same time there are pretty much zero enforcement agents so unless there is something that is super egregious it won't be looked at (and even when there is something terrible it rarely gets covered).

 

LMG is in no means "transparent" and the fact that everyone keeps thinking that LMG is transparent is frustrating.  It's the same thing of people who look at the big name celebrities who say "look at how much they are donating" etc...but fail to see that a lot of what is done is for tax write-offs, or in some cases it's viewed essentially as publicity because if you are "doing enough good things" you get a legion who defend you by saying doing a whole think of the children.

 

Again, look at that short circuit video, in no way does it meet the minimum requirement.

 

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

Also, if I’m not mistaken it is Linus himself that invested and not LMG, which makes a big difference. If Linus isn’t editorializing a video, the writer of the video, nor appearing in the video, then it isn’t an investor reviewing a product it’s someone else. Look at how many people are on staff at LMG, do you think any time an Apple product is reviewed and someone unassociated in the company has Apple stock, LMG has to disclose it? No, they don’t.

Doesn't matter, Linus isn't a no named employee at LMG.  Linus owns LMG and still has the final say if he so chooses.  That means material connections, such as investments need to still be disclosed.

 

For your scenario, if the employee has Apple stocks and is making a review about an Apple product then 100% there should be a disclosure.

 

I worked for a publicly traded company before, it meant that every year I was doing essentially a whole ethics and disclosure stuff...including things that involved that I should not affiliations with any partners etc that we worked with.  It's why even though I knew things were going to happen (no through my job) with the stock market I was unable to purchase them because it would setup a conflict of interest.

 

 

Linus and LMG can be considered for all intents and purposes in this case the same.  As shown above as well, in their Series A slides they used Linus Tech Tips in their slides, which again muddies the whole thing.

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Just because there are a lot of people who do it doesn't make it right to do it.  Again it's clearly laid out on the Canadian Competition Bureau in regards to what has to be disclosed.  Saying it as a one off one liner in the middle, and then at the end isn't proper when the first half of a video already states a lot of things about it.  It's why any responsible YouTuber discloses material connections prior to talking about what they are going to talk about.

 

Stating in the middle wouldn't satisfy the law, but at the same time there are pretty much zero enforcement agents so unless there is something that is super egregious it won't be looked at (and even when there is something terrible it rarely gets covered).

 

LMG is in no means "transparent" and the fact that everyone keeps thinking that LMG is transparent is frustrating.  It's the same thing of people who look at the big name celebrities who say "look at how much they are donating" etc...but fail to see that a lot of what is done is for tax write-offs, or in some cases it's viewed essentially as publicity because if you are "doing enough good things" you get a legion who defend you by saying doing a whole think of the children.

 

Again, look at that short circuit video, in no way does it meet the minimum requirement.

 

Doesn't matter, Linus isn't a no named employee at LMG.  Linus owns LMG and still has the final say if he so chooses.  That means material connections, such as investments need to still be disclosed.

 

For your scenario, if the employee has Apple stocks and is making a review about an Apple product then 100% there should be a disclosure.

 

I worked for a publicly traded company before, it meant that every year I was doing essentially a whole ethics and disclosure stuff...including things that involved that I should not affiliations with any partners etc that we worked with.  It's why even though I knew things were going to happen (no through my job) with the stock market I was unable to purchase them because it would setup a conflict of interest.

 

 

Linus and LMG can be considered for all intents and purposes in this case the same.  As shown above as well, in their Series A slides they used Linus Tech Tips in their slides, which again muddies the whole thing.

Actually, the frequency other people do something and it being accepted does matter. LMG is a large company, they’re visible to any government watchdog agency in Canada that wants to review their videos for violations; After several years and numerous videos regarding Framework, if this were actually a legally problematic situation something would have happened.

 

If “everyone keeps thinking LMG is transparent…” and yet you’re being incredibly contrary? Maybe the problem is your viewpoint or stubbornness; Just food for thought.

 

Linus and LMG are not the same legal entity, he’s allowed to have his own personal investments and things outside of work, at the same time LMG employees are also separate from the company and Linus’ investments.
 

My scenario was about an uninvolved employee, which is true if Linus doesn’t sit on camera, write the script, or editorialize the script/video. And absolutely if some employee there owns stock in Apple and someone else is doing a review on one of the numerous LMG channels, that doesn’t have to be mentioned. 

Your conflict of interest is a complete red-herring and not at all relevant to this discussion. Linus having a maybe 1% investment standing in a company, making public videos about that company where his investment is disclosed, while saying nothing that isn’t public information or OK’d by framework’s PR department, doesn’t create a conflict of interest.
 

TLDR: Linus verbally pointing-out a sponsorship mid-video is fine because everyone does that and it is clearly not running afoul of the law, you hyper-focusing on an issue when untold numbers of people don’t reflects more about you than the other people, and if a personal investor/stockholder is uninvolved in a corporate project then the people that are don’t have to wave signs and yap about how someone else is.