PC Master Race

I have not finished reading the article, but "Receipt 1" is just embarrassing to GN in my eyes. They claim LMG never addresses the plagierism and provides an email chain where Linus tell him what exactly LMG is going to do in response and GN responds indicating the solution is good. Where is the problem?

Specifically on publicly addressing it, Linus said they will pin a comment and Steve said that's OK. That's what happened. Is it truly unresolved? Just reading the emails provided makes it really look like an open and closed case.

I also dont get why they include the additional context in that part of their response. What does GN's recent criticism of LMG have to do with that interaction?

Sorry, on mobile and just had to type something out before I forgot, because this is a long read.

Your understanding of what qualifies as plagiarism feels wrong. Just because an organization advertises itself as a "weekly analysis and news" doesn't disqualify them from citing sources. They still are required to give credit where credit is due.. Even mainstream news channels will let their audience know where they are acquiring their information whenever it isn't coming from their own investigations.

At the end of the day, if a primary source privately requests a citation, then a citation is definitely required, so this is where lmg really messed up. GN (as the primary source) felt wronged when lmg used information from their own investigative journalism and did not give them credit (when they apparently gave Jayz2cents credit). At that point in time, lmg was obligated to give GN credit and lmg admitted to this mistake; but then did little to nothing to rectify it.

Agreed. I think GN missed the point by not publishing the smoking gun receipts, but an avalanche of receipts for things LMG was guilty of and have admitted to. It kinda makes it look like GN wants it to look like they're "burying LMG with evidence", but in reality the smoking gun would only need to be a paragraph & some screenshots.

While I mostly agree with you, I do think there are problematic things in this article that make Linus come off as disingenuous at best, especially seeing that he played the "I have 0 idea what I did wrong, I want to sue you but i wont" card.

As for the reciepts for lack of citations, while I think it's obvious that Steve is asking for citations and he shouldn't have to ask, it's always best to make your request explicit. It breeds animosity to have expectations and not state or ask them clearly. I could absolutely see someone being naive in these exchanges and thinking that Steve was reaching out not to get a citation but to fix future mistakes.

The worst thing about this bullshit though is the lmg clips video title. It's a serious allegation that Linus allegedly wants to resolve, but they cover it in cringe memery. And I say this as someone who watches LTT and not GN.

I think if Linus had just called out Steve's beef and publicly requested some forum to speak privately or publicly and sort out differences, that'd be one thing. But with the lmg clip title and the "want to sue, but I won't" bs, it all just seems kinda gross. I know that Linus may not be personally responsible for that, but the company uses his name, and he started it.

You can't publish an entire NYT news article verbatim and then claim, "I'm just reacting." The GN article is copyrighted.