0:03 hey everyone uh before we start our
0:05 pre-ww show topic today I'd like to
0:08 acknowledge a couple folks I'd like to
0:10 acknowledge our team who works so hard
0:11 to deliver outstanding content to our
0:13 community and second I'd like to
0:16 acknowledge our community no one's
0:18 perfect yes even us and for as long as
0:20 lus Media Group has existed you guys
0:21 have been there to help us uh you've
0:23 held us accountable when we've gone
0:25 astray and you've also supported us when
0:28 an attack against us is unfair and it's
0:29 time for someone else to be held accountable
0:30 accountable
0:33 earlier this week Gamers Nexus took us
0:36 out of context again and I can't keep
0:38 ignoring this sort of thing lonus
0:41 recently in a wow episode said the
0:44 following uh Regarding why they did not
0:46 make a video when they found out about
0:49 the way honey Works years ago in
0:51 response to how he believed he might be
0:54 perceived if he had raised awareness to
0:57 H's actions when his team discovered
0:59 them everyone's mad at me it's that
1:02 simple the I'm spreading the word for
1:04 the smaller creators that argument
1:05 doesn't save me there and it's not going
1:07 to save me if I tell people to uninstall
1:08 this extension that gets them a better
1:10 deal so that
1:12 small creators can get their affiliate
1:15 Revenue are you kidding me there is just
1:17 no way that I make that video and I
1:18 don't end up hanging from the nearest
1:21 tree well that's the video we're making
1:23 right now and if that were to result in
1:26 backlash like he thinks it would then so be
1:27 be
1:31 it even if we ignore how disingenuous it
1:34 is to compare the climate today and what
1:37 we know today to The Climate years ago
1:38 when we originally dropped our honey
1:40 sponsorship our regular viewers will
1:43 know that I provided additional context
1:45 that dramatically changes the meaning of
1:47 that quote I mean I don't expect
1:49 everyone to agree with my viewpoint it's
1:51 very clear that not everybody does but
1:53 what I do expect is for it to be fairly
1:55 represented and this particular instance
1:58 of misquoting is bad enough that many
2:00 from Steve's own community used words to
2:02 describe it like disappointing
2:06 misleading disingenuous and straw man to
2:08 my knowledge no retraction has been
2:10 issued even though I believe it is
2:12 unlikely that the volume of comments
2:14 about this went unnoticed by Steve and
2:17 his team you guys may remember another
2:19 video Steve made about us back in August
2:22 of 2023 but what you might have missed
2:24 is that his treatment of us then was
2:26 part of the same pattern of poor ethics
2:29 and misrepresentation to be clear many
2:32 points in his video were valid but many
2:34 others were not and it was due to
2:36 fundamental flaws in his approach not
2:40 careless or sloppy flaws but objectively
2:43 unethical unjal flaws you shouldn't take
2:46 my word for that while I do often report
2:48 on things and I do my best to act in the
2:50 community's interest I'm not a
2:52 journalist so why don't we instead look
2:54 at ethics and journalism. org they have
2:56 some good articles on subjects like bad
3:00 news bias and right to respond or maybe
3:02 we could look to the BBC you can pick
3:04 your poison the point is that while not
3:05 every publication has exactly the same
3:07 rules there are plenty of helpful
3:09 resources out there that outline the
3:11 generally accepted standards and ethical
3:13 responsibilities of a journalist it's
3:16 clear reading any of them that Steve's
3:17 approach in recent years falls short in
3:19 numerous ways if you prefer a video
3:21 summary here's a convenient one from Dr
3:24 Ian CIS of more than Moore the story
3:25 Gamers Nexus provides is one
3:27 specifically about less Media Group
3:30 which changes the nature of such a topic
3:32 for example one part of ethical
3:34 investigative journalism is unless it's
3:36 uncovering an explicit crime or break of
3:38 the law reaching out to get a formal
3:41 response in advance Gamers Nexus did it
3:43 with principal Technologies and that
3:45 blew up Gamers Nexus did it with Newegg
3:48 and that blew up somehow those companies
3:50 got special treatment but lus Media
3:52 Group did not this isn't me sticking up
3:54 for lus Media Group here but i' be
3:56 interested to hear the reason for the
3:58 disparity Steve in his update video
4:00 explicitly states he doesn't have to ask
4:02 for permission but that's not the point
4:05 here reaching out to less Media Group
4:06 wouldn't stop you from posting your
4:08 video just like it didn't stop you
4:11 posting him posting the principal
4:13 Technologies or New Egg videos the
4:15 president set for the last 20 years of
4:18 tech journalism and 100 plus years of
4:20 investigative journalism is that you at
4:24 least Reach Out Ian's critique was
4:26 carefully worded and I don't blame him
4:28 given the climate at the time but it was
4:31 both extremely valid and it was pointed
4:33 enough that Steve felt compelled to
4:35 respond to it ironically with a rushed
4:38 late night ramble Fest that was so
4:39 poorly received that he pulled it down
4:41 before I even got a chance to finish
4:43 watching it back then thankfully there
4:45 are reuploads of the video if you look
4:46 for them but in a nutshell Steve spent
4:49 about 20 minutes rationalizing that
4:51 Decades of journalistic best practices
4:53 around right to reply simply don't apply
4:56 to him felt a little ironic coming from
4:58 someone who has accused me of
5:00 gaslighting in the past
5:03 now he did Issue a sort of retraction
5:04 via a community post that you can still
5:06 find on the channel where he committed
5:09 to republish that video at a future date
5:10 but he said that it would be within a
5:13 broader Channel update so I'm not
5:15 actually sure if that ever happened and
5:17 either way what he didn't do is retract
5:19 his flawed arguments only the video
5:21 where he made them I say this because
5:23 you can still find many of these
5:25 arguments on his secondary GN mini site
5:27 in the ethics statement
5:30 section now obviously there are valid
5:32 policies in here but many of the others
5:33 pretty much boil down to Steve's
5:36 personal moral code rather than the
5:38 standard journalistic code and I'll
5:40 expand on that a bit later but the short
5:42 version is that no reputable journalist
5:44 would validate his arbitrary
5:46 justification for his own conflicts of
5:49 interest or his convoluted no contact
5:51 policy that he used to justify his
5:53 failure to reach out to us for comment
5:56 as part of our right to
5:59 respond now some folks don't seem to
6:02 understand why this is so important I
6:05 have seen lots of speculation that lonus
6:08 was just upset because Steve cleverly
6:09 didn't give him a chance to weasle out
6:11 of legitimate
6:14 criticism but that is not the case we
6:17 have proven over the years again and
6:20 again we welcome constructive criticism
6:21 and we go out of our way to maintain
6:23 open communication Channels with our
6:25 community like through our sponsor
6:27 excuse me through our sponsor concern
6:29 section of our forum and through our
6:30 incredible ECC Squad who lends us their
6:32 expertise at multiple stages of our production
6:33 production
6:37 pipeline no right to respond matters
6:40 because of the impact that it can have
6:42 on your accuracy by taking a single
6:46 source and for his own reasons refusing
6:49 to fact check their misrepresentations
6:51 Steve made multiple critical errors in
6:53 his coverage of the Billet lab
6:56 situation now look I know this example
6:58 is from two years ago but it's one that
7:01 I'm obviously familiar with with and it
7:03 very clearly illustrates the way that
7:05 Steve believed and still believes that
7:07 he should be allowed to just avoid
7:09 inconvenient data sources when he crafts
7:13 his narratives first up Steve missed
7:14 that Billet originally gifted the block
7:16 to us we were under no obligation to
7:19 return it he missed that they told us
7:20 explicitly that it should work with a
7:24 490 before we attempted it he missed
7:26 that Billet told us they were
7:27 comfortable with us publishing the
7:29 underperforming results as long as as we
7:32 put it in context and finally Steve
7:34 missed that the block only went into our
7:36 Charity Auction because of an internal
7:38 miscommunication that left the block
7:40 marked as keeper a mistake that I took
7:42 action on within literal minutes of
7:46 finding out now I acknowledge that I
7:48 didn't handle the situation perfectly
7:51 but I think it is undeniable that these
7:53 omissions and errors are significant and
7:55 that they've done significant possibly
7:58 irreparable damage to my reputation to
8:01 my company and to my
8:04 finances to be clear I'm only pointing
8:06 out the finances because it's such an
8:09 important factor in cases of liel and
8:11 defamation as I stated recently when I
8:13 was discussing the honey class action
8:16 I'm not a litigious person I have no
8:17 intention of filing any kind of suit
8:20 because a it's really hard to say if the
8:22 line to defamation has been clearly
8:24 crossed and B it would be a giant waste
8:26 of time and money for everyone involved
8:28 I only bring it up to underscore the
8:30 gravity of the situation
8:32 the thing is words mean what they mean
8:34 and while morality is a personal
8:38 judgment journalistic ethics is not it's
8:39 determined by collaboration and
8:42 consensus between peers in the industry
8:44 look if Steve wants to do his own thing
8:46 and call himself a YouTuber with strong
8:49 moral fiber that's his opinion and he's
8:51 entitled to it and you're entitled to
8:53 agree or disagree but if he wants to use
8:55 word like words like ethics or
8:57 investigative journalism then there are
8:58 objective standards that he needs to
9:00 uphold and he doesn't get to decide when
9:02 they're important and when they're
9:04 not now I believe that Steve is aware of
9:06 these distinctions which suggests that
9:08 he is either ignoring his knowledge
9:09 because he has failed to properly
9:11 understand it or because he is
9:14 dishonest I have no evidence to suggest
9:15 that he is not smart enough to
9:16 understand these
9:18 principles what I do have experience
9:21 with personally is his dishonesty the
9:22 misquote of me in the honey lawsuit
9:25 video that forced me to address this is
9:26 self-evident but it's the
9:28 rationalization for not reaching out
9:30 about Billet that paints a more complete
9:33 picture for starters he asserts that the
9:36 information presented in his the problem
9:38 with lus Media Group video was already public
9:39 public
9:42 knowledge some of it was some of it
9:44 clearly wasn't Billet labs's
9:45 representations of our private
9:48 communication were not public knowledge
9:50 and as we demonstrated in our response
9:52 they were not provided in good faith or
9:53 with the appropriate
9:55 context had he reached out for
9:56 clarification I feel it would have been
9:58 clear both to himself and to his
10:00 audience that the events that led to the
10:01 block being auctioned were an honest
10:06 miscommunication I think it also would
10:08 have been obvious that any perception
10:11 that I behaved like a thief or a liar is
10:14 not supported by the facts it also would
10:15 have been clear that some retractions
10:16 and Corrections were required in order
10:18 to address the information that I
10:20 provided to my knowledge no such action
10:22 has been taken and the original video is
10:25 still up since we're at this I would
10:26 also be very curious to see receipts for
10:29 the claims that we have a history of
10:31 failure to resolve issues or
10:37 Communications okay GN further writes we
10:39 previously had nonpublic contact with
10:42 this organization lmg here about similar
10:43 matters that were not resolved
10:45 satisfactorily or wherein we sometimes
10:47 were the recipients of aggressive
10:49 messaging pertaining to review top
10:52 topics sorry
10:55 topics that is an extraordinary claim
10:57 that I believe requires extraordinary
10:58 evidence I'm not going to deny I've had
11:00 my fair share of cranky days in my life
11:03 it is possible also that he could be
11:04 referring to another individual who
11:06 worked here but I dug through every DM
11:09 and email that I could find with Steve I
11:11 probably don't have all of them I have
11:13 switched phones many times in my life
11:16 but I can't find any evidence to support
11:18 this I'm not perfect so I want to make
11:21 it upfront right here and say that if I
11:22 acted unprofessionally or aggressively
11:25 at any point that was not my intention
11:27 and I'm truly sorry but
11:30 also the whole thing just doesn't make
11:31 any sense like if you stop and think
11:35 about it if he reached out for comment
11:37 and I actually responded in the manner
11:40 that he alleges I might with dishonesty or
11:40 or
11:43 aggression publishing that response
11:46 right that would be great supporting
11:47 material for his
11:51 expose so even if the argument that he
11:52 doesn't need to reach out because I
11:54 could be rude and return held up
11:56 ethically which it doesn't it also
11:59 doesn't hold up logically and the same
12:02 goes for his claims that I could somehow
12:04 turn it into an opportunity to
12:07 mislead mislead who assuming his
12:10 evidence and conclusions are solid any
12:12 deceptive action that I took in public
12:13 would again give him further ammunition
12:17 to make his case and unless he's afraid
12:20 that I could somehow bamboozle him in
12:21 private the most that I could do there
12:23 is offer an explanation or context both
12:27 of which could only help him if his
12:29 intent was truly to provide an accurate
12:32 count unfortunately as many of you have
12:33 come to realize after the latest honey
12:35 thing I don't believe that that was ever
12:39 the intent now look I know that the
12:41 first criticism of this segment is going
12:43 to be there goes lonus again all emotional
12:45 emotional
12:47 defensive but what would you do what
12:50 would you have me do I apologized for
12:52 the errors that we've made and I kept my
12:54 mouth shut about this stuff for ages in
12:57 the interest of moving past this it's
13:00 not working and like this isn't some
13:02 random comment on Reddit guys this is an
13:04 influencer with massive reach
13:07 misrepresenting me on an ongoing basis
13:09 how long should I stay silent to atone
13:11 for my real sins and how many times
13:13 should I be unfairly attacked before I'm
13:15 allowed to get
13:18 defensive thing is if I allow myself to
13:20 be misrepresented that opens the door
13:22 for someone else to be misrepresented at
13:24 some point I'm sure you guys can agree
13:26 it becomes necessary to stand up for
13:29 yourself I am not saying I'm perfect
13:32 spoiler I'm super not but there are
13:34 numerous conflicts of interest around
13:36 Gamers Nexus covering Us in any way
13:38 which he well knows because he lists
13:41 them on his website and a token gesture
13:43 like for going the AdSense revenue on
13:46 one video Falls a little flat when you
13:47 compare what can be gained through
13:49 subscriber growth AdSense revenue on
13:51 future videos not to mention from
13:53 elevating one's own reputation and brand
13:55 at the cost of a
13:57 competitor over the last year and a half
13:59 I've made sometimes quite difficult
14:00 efforts to put aside my personal
14:02 feelings and move on in spite of my
14:04 well-founded concerns about Steve's
14:06 impartiality not to mention the painful
14:08 personal history some of which I just laid
14:09 laid
14:13 out we including me personally have made
14:15 an active effort to just go back to
14:17 normal start shouting out Gamers Nexus
14:19 we've done it multiple times for their
14:22 stories of reporting and so we should
14:24 when people do good work we as an
14:25 industry should praise it but that
14:28 should be a two-way street the honest
14:31 truth is I don't actually know what
14:34 Steve's issue with me is today my last
14:36 message to him was on the day he
14:38 published the Expose and I never got a
14:40 response I will read it here so we can
14:46 page a journalist might have reached out
14:48 for comment to get valuable context
14:50 first but we both know that once again
14:51 this wasn't about making the most
14:53 accurate video your glass house is
14:57 showing here I'm referring of course to
14:59 the analogy of throwing stones in a Glass
15:00 Glass
15:02 House scaling Beyond a few dudes is a
15:04 big Challenge and I really hope that one
15:07 day you get there one I still think that
15:08 even if your judgment is clouded right
15:10 now by the giant conflict of interest
15:11 you have around reporting on us your
15:13 heart's in the right place and that it
15:16 would be good for the industry two I
15:17 think it'll be good for your content and
15:19 for your audience for you to have a broader
15:20 broader
15:22 perspective I'll be moving forward as
15:23 normal and won't be participating in any
15:26 kind of nonsense public sniping it'd be
15:27 good for views or whatever but I'm
15:28 pretty focused on growing the company
15:31 and our test capabilities and our team
15:32 you're still welcome at Future LTX
15:34 events and we'd be happy to resume
15:35 working together in good faith if you
15:37 ever decide again that working together
15:39 as press is good for the industry until then
15:41 then
15:44 lonus what I said holds true today
15:45 including the part at the end I want to
15:47 move forward but that's going to take
15:49 some work from both parties not just me
15:51 so I'm going to shift gears and the next
15:52 part will be directed to Steve who was
15:55 sent an Advan copy of my letter today
15:57 which he has responded to kind of along
15:58 with a request for comment on his
16:01 apparent challenges around cing us
16:04 objectively Steve on W today I'll be
16:05 doing a segment outlining some of the
16:07 ethical and journalistic issues with
16:08 your content that I have observed
16:09 personally and that I have seen raised
16:11 by the community I will be especially
16:13 focused on how they have impacted your
16:15 coverage of me and my company because I
16:17 most familiar with the relevant facts
16:18 but these issues appear to run deeper
16:20 and I believe they could be impacting
16:21 your ability to be objective overall
16:24 something I know the Community Values
16:26 greatly there will be a particular focus
16:28 on your stance around right of reply
16:30 since it affects accuracy so much and
16:31 there will also be some discussion
16:33 around misquoting as in the recent honey
16:36 video as well as your ability to address
16:38 or your inability to address your clear
16:39 conflicts of interest when it comes to
16:40 covering an entity that you have chosen
16:42 to view as a direct competitor rather
16:44 than as a collaborator or peer as you
16:45 did in the
16:48 past if you have some comments and
16:50 evidence on what breakdowns caused your
16:52 inaccurate coverage of us in the past
16:54 why you seem to find it so challenging
16:56 to cover us objectively and what steps
16:58 you plan to make to rectify these issues
16:59 in the future I would be happy to
17:02 include your thoughts in this segment
17:03 the segment will also include the
17:05 following letter that is addressed to
17:07 you Steve we do our best around here to
17:09 do what we believe is right and to stand
17:11 up for the consumer that leads to us
17:13 doing journalist things sometimes and I
17:15 understand basic journalistic principles
17:16 but I'm not a journalist and I've never
17:18 claimed to be the reason I'm sending
17:19 this to you then is not because I'm some
17:21 journalist reaching out for comment but
17:23 out of respect and because I was once a
17:24 collaborator and supporter and I hope to
17:25 be again
17:28 someday for that to happen though I do
17:31 have some quests everyone is human and
17:33 we all make mistakes but I believe that
17:34 for you to become the journalist you
17:36 aspire to be there are some errors in
17:38 both your approach and in your coverage
17:40 that are large enough to Merit
17:42 correction obviously not everything
17:44 needs to be pulled your method's aside
17:46 it's clear you were right about a lot of
17:48 things in August of 23 but it's also
17:50 clear that between the conjecture
17:53 editorialization and what I hope are
17:55 simply errors rather than lies a number
17:57 of retractions are in order both on that
18:00 piece and in your other coverage this
18:02 isn't just for me but also for your
18:03 community who looks to you to do the
18:06 right thing as for the personal side of
18:08 things I can't ask you to like me you
18:11 clearly disagree on a personal moral
18:13 basis with some things I do which of
18:14 them are real and which of them are
18:15 performative I'm actually not sure
18:17 anymore but it doesn't matter that's
18:19 your personal compass and you got to follow
18:20 follow
18:23 it what does matter is treating others
18:25 in the industry with respect and being
18:26 prepared to be held accountable the same
18:28 way you hold others accountable
18:29 traditional journalism while a
18:31 competitive Battlefield has no absolute
18:33 Authority and is quite often a
18:35 Brotherhood with shared goals that hold
18:37 each other accountable to mutually
18:40 agreed upon standards standards it's not
18:42 a brutal free for- all so as part of
18:44 being a contributing member of the tech
18:46 Brotherhood I expect you to be open to
18:47 critique in the same way that you expect
18:49 others to be open to
18:51 critique I also expect that if you cover
18:53 us publicly in the future you do so with
18:55 honesty impartiality and proper
18:57 disclosure of your numerous conflicts of
19:00 interest with that said regardless of
19:02 your motives in 23 your actions did
19:03 serve as a wakeup call for us to
19:05 supercharge the changes that we were
19:07 slow rolling and for that I'm
19:09 thankful now it's time for your wakeup
19:12 call should you choose to accept it if
19:14 you can't put your biases aside simply
19:16 recusing yourself is an option but it
19:18 might require some further retractions
19:20 since you've claimed in the past that
19:22 covering us is so very important because
19:24 of our business's relevance to the tech
19:26 industry well if that's no longer the
19:28 case then any Snipes that relied on that
19:29 for justification
19:30 prob to go
19:32 too I understand you may not want to
19:35 rebild this bridge but I still want you
19:38 to know that while Gamers Nexus LLC is
19:39 every bit as much of a for-profit
19:42 business as lonus Media Group
19:44 Incorporated I lonus Sebastian the
19:46 individual still see you Steven Burke
19:48 the individual as a colleague and
19:50 potential future collaborator because
19:51 the reality of it is personal feelings
19:53 aside we both fight for the same team
19:55 the consumers and the community a
19:57 community that is stronger if we just
20:00 cut the tribalism and work
20:02 together I've always said that a rising
20:04 tide lifts All Ships and that we all
20:05 benefit from more interest in our Hobby
20:08 and more contributors to our community I
20:09 have always encouraged our viewers to
20:12 follow multiple outlets and get multiple
20:15 perspectives including yours you used to
20:16 tell me that you agreed with those
20:18 things I hope you can again because this
20:19 is going to be especially important as
20:21 we navigate the weirdness around
20:23 benchmarking machine learning assisted
20:25 cards like the upcoming 50 Series so in
20:29 summary I welcome valid constru Ive good
20:32 faith two-way feedback but when I told
20:33 you a year ago that I had no interest in
20:35 public sniping matches that was the
20:37 truth Our Community and Tech used to
20:39 stand out as one that embraced
20:42 collaboration and rejected beef I would
20:45 like that again I chose to make my
20:47 statement as a segment on Wow and a clip
20:48 on our Clips channels rather than a
20:49 dedicated video in hopes of finding a
20:52 balance between sharing my side finally
20:56 and igniting drama for views so can we
20:58 forget the past to move forward see you
21:00 at computex
21:03 lonus now I'd like to come back to
21:06 addressing you all for once in the
21:07 history of online
21:09 communities guys I beg of you this is
21:13 not oh shots fired do not get into a
21:15 mudslinging match over this continue the
21:17 good work you do holding creators
21:19 accountable but this is not and it
21:23 should never be LT versus G GN US versus
21:26 them some folks are going to insist on
21:28 interpreting it that way but I believe
21:31 the majority the rational viewers should
21:32 be able to see the truth of what I'm
21:34 saying even if they don't always agree
21:36 with the source and see the importance
21:38 of moving on as for the ones that can't
21:41 do that look if their Viewpoint is
21:44 closed we gain Nothing by arguing with
21:46 them except wasting our energy energy we
21:48 need to power RTX
21:51 509s so let's rise above
21:55 it so with that in mind then funny memes
21:58 in bounds I like humor as much as anyone
21:59 but if Steve wants to move on then I
22:01 would like to respectfully request an
22:04 end to the GN bashing posts for that
22:06 matter any other publication in our
22:08 various Community gathering places
22:10 YouTube comments Discord Reddit and the
22:12 LT forum and any that I haven't thought
22:14 of I'd like us to be the change we want
Chrome Extension