willtheorangeguy/2018-WAN-Show-Transcripts

text stringlengths 14 502
[2359.50 --> 2363.34] And a lot of good points in here about these guys.
[2364.04 --> 2365.36] Look how credible she looks.
[2365.64 --> 2366.16] That's awesome.
[2366.66 --> 2368.80] That just feels like an infomercial.
[2368.88 --> 2375.64] Showing off their molecular scanner that they claim will allow you to see the chemical breakdown
[2375.64 --> 2379.56] of the food that you point their scanner at.
[2380.34 --> 2380.62] Okay.
[2381.00 --> 2385.12] And it used something, something, infrared, something, something, something, something, something.
[2385.22 --> 2392.20] Anyway, the reason we're bringing this up is because footage from TechQuickie was taken
[2392.20 --> 2397.68] out of context in such a way that it appeared as though we had been sponsored by one of these
[2397.68 --> 2401.92] molecular scanner companies and hadn't disclosed it.
[2401.92 --> 2407.60] And now, we're not entirely not at fault here.
[2407.72 --> 2413.48] What we didn't do was validate that these particular molecular scanners, because we did bring up at
[2413.48 --> 2416.88] least one of them in the video, we hadn't validated that they actually worked.
[2417.16 --> 2421.60] Because the video was about the technology in general, which does work.
[2422.28 --> 2428.92] And we mentioned in the video, at the end of the video, we mentioned that these handheld ones were...
[2428.92 --> 2429.10] Okay.
[2429.10 --> 2434.34] So actually, midway through the video, we mentioned these handheld ones are not going to replace the
[2434.34 --> 2438.86] much more expensive versions of this technology that are for lab use.
[2439.04 --> 2440.18] We do mention that.
[2440.30 --> 2446.56] And we also say at the end of the video that we can't speak to the efficacy of these particular
[2446.56 --> 2448.00] devices at this time.
[2448.32 --> 2451.12] But we say, you know, we're excited to see where this technology heads.
[2451.12 --> 2456.82] Unfortunately, the way that it was presented in this video, it made it look as though we
[2456.82 --> 2460.96] were endorsing the technology and the product in particular, and that we hadn't disclosed
[2460.96 --> 2461.96] some kind of sponsorship.
[2462.24 --> 2463.66] Another note that we have here.
[2463.94 --> 2467.42] I haven't seen our version of this video, to be completely clear, but I know how we make
[2467.42 --> 2467.68] things.
[2467.74 --> 2471.16] We could have done a better job of saying that we hadn't validated it.
[2471.82 --> 2472.24] Fair.
[2472.76 --> 2475.62] But apparently, we do say the company's claims.
[2475.62 --> 2478.64] We don't say that it absolutely works this way.
[2478.76 --> 2481.20] We say that they claim that they work this way.
[2483.16 --> 2491.20] So basically, I just wanted to talk to you guys and say, hey, no, we were not sponsored.
[2491.90 --> 2496.10] Yes, we could have done a better job of making sure that a product that we're using as an
[2496.10 --> 2499.68] example of a technology that we're talking about actually works.
[2500.20 --> 2502.00] And does not come across as endorsed, I guess.
[2502.00 --> 2505.42] And we could do a better job of making sure it doesn't come across as endorsed.
[2505.60 --> 2509.44] But the fact of the matter is, we were not sponsored.
[2509.66 --> 2511.16] We have nothing to do with that company.
[2511.26 --> 2512.32] We've never talked to them.
[2512.62 --> 2515.40] We've made no effort to get our hands on their molecular scanner.
[2515.66 --> 2519.44] And yeah, it's probably BS based on what I've seen so far.
[2520.50 --> 2524.04] The other thing that I also don't know, I have not looked into this.
[2524.10 --> 2526.70] The other thing that I don't know is how the timing lines up.
[2527.00 --> 2530.62] So I don't know if these were actually available to try yet.
[2530.62 --> 2533.96] Oh, okay.
[2534.44 --> 2535.90] At the time that we made the video.
[2536.18 --> 2536.94] So when did we make this?
[2536.94 --> 2541.06] Yeah, we're just going to be a lot more cautious about any pieces we do on emerging technology.
[2541.58 --> 2546.10] But the thing that frustrated me was just that the way it was presented made us look like
[2546.10 --> 2546.98] complete idiots.
[2550.52 --> 2552.28] Well, I think that's kind of his goal, right?
[2552.68 --> 2554.00] Yeah, I guess so.
[2554.14 --> 2555.34] Pretty much that's his shtick.
[2556.00 --> 2558.32] Yeah, that's cool, I guess.
[2558.32 --> 2561.16] All right, so next up.
[2562.12 --> 2563.12] That's a bit of digging.
[2563.32 --> 2564.56] Yeah, that video is kind of old now.
[2565.98 --> 2567.26] Yeah, it's a couple of years old.
[2567.36 --> 2568.42] Nearing a year and a half?
[2569.44 --> 2569.66] Yep.
[2570.68 --> 2572.56] Oh, actually, we've got other news.
[2572.82 --> 2575.32] So this was posted on the forum by Numlock21.
[2575.58 --> 2578.36] And the original article is from videocards.com.
[2578.44 --> 2579.76] So take that for what it is.
[2579.76 --> 2582.64] Let's just be very clear.
[2582.70 --> 2583.52] Oh, actually, hold on.
[2583.56 --> 2584.66] Before we move on.
[2587.26 --> 2590.84] Ranmachan97 asks, are you going to copyright strike them for using your content improperly?
[2591.08 --> 2592.30] No, they haven't actually.
[2593.02 --> 2598.66] Okay, well, we could make the argument that taking it out of context could be improperly.
[2598.66 --> 2602.80] But that's something that we would have to fight in court.
[2603.06 --> 2610.56] That's not something that is as simple as because you used our footage, it has therefore been used improperly.
[2610.62 --> 2612.18] There could be a fair use defense there.
[2612.18 --> 2627.86] If the argument is made that one entity is reporting on something another one has done, that's how you can get around having a whole lot of footage from a movie with just voiceover if you are using it in order to critique the movie.
[2628.64 --> 2633.30] So, no, honestly, normally we wouldn't even bring up something like this.
[2633.30 --> 2643.02] It was just that some members of our community that I actually recognized were in the comment section on that video saying that they thought we were honest and they thought we disclosed our sponsors.
[2643.68 --> 2646.90] And I wanted to make sure that you guys know we do and we did.
[2646.90 --> 2648.24] Never even had contact with them.
[2648.40 --> 2656.02] And we have nothing to do with those guys aside from picking a topic that maybe was a little premature.
[2656.50 --> 2658.60] Someone brought up tarnishes your brand image perhaps.
[2658.76 --> 2660.56] I don't think we're going to do it.
[2660.56 --> 2663.72] We're not really in the market of slamming people too hard.
[2663.74 --> 2666.10] Yeah, we're not really a drama channel.
[2666.38 --> 2666.50] No.
[2666.50 --> 2667.96] We don't really do that.
[2668.30 --> 2682.10] There has been far worse things that people have said about us, but given that they didn't grab the attention of our community, we have just completely ignored them because what's the point of drawing attention to it?
[2682.32 --> 2682.52] Yeah.
[2682.52 --> 2687.84] I mean, all we've really done at this point is give Thunderfoot some more AdSense revenue.
[2687.84 --> 2692.10] And that's really the only thing that you accomplish typically through drama.
[2692.36 --> 2696.16] So I guess I'm going to go off on a tangent here.
[2696.24 --> 2701.74] I guess I'm going to kind of ruin YouTube for a lot of the people that haven't clued into this.
[2702.22 --> 2706.50] But the vast majority of the drama you see is manufactured.
[2706.50 --> 2709.56] Not all of it, but the vast majority.
[2709.58 --> 2712.32] Not all of it, but more than you would probably think.
[2712.40 --> 2718.98] It is mutually beneficial for two entities of some sort or another to be feuding.
[2720.48 --> 2724.10] You know, I wonder if that's the game Samsung and Apple are playing.
[2725.16 --> 2726.42] Like, hold on a second.

[2359.50 --> 2363.34] And a lot of good points in here about these guys.

[2364.04 --> 2365.36] Look how credible she looks.

[2365.64 --> 2366.16] That's awesome.

[2366.66 --> 2368.80] That just feels like an infomercial.

[2368.88 --> 2375.64] Showing off their molecular scanner that they claim will allow you to see the chemical breakdown

[2375.64 --> 2379.56] of the food that you point their scanner at.

[2380.34 --> 2380.62] Okay.

[2381.00 --> 2385.12] And it used something, something, infrared, something, something, something, something, something.

[2385.22 --> 2392.20] Anyway, the reason we're bringing this up is because footage from TechQuickie was taken

[2392.20 --> 2397.68] out of context in such a way that it appeared as though we had been sponsored by one of these

[2397.68 --> 2401.92] molecular scanner companies and hadn't disclosed it.

[2401.92 --> 2407.60] And now, we're not entirely not at fault here.

[2407.72 --> 2413.48] What we didn't do was validate that these particular molecular scanners, because we did bring up at

[2413.48 --> 2416.88] least one of them in the video, we hadn't validated that they actually worked.

[2417.16 --> 2421.60] Because the video was about the technology in general, which does work.

[2422.28 --> 2428.92] And we mentioned in the video, at the end of the video, we mentioned that these handheld ones were...

[2428.92 --> 2429.10] Okay.

[2429.10 --> 2434.34] So actually, midway through the video, we mentioned these handheld ones are not going to replace the

[2434.34 --> 2438.86] much more expensive versions of this technology that are for lab use.

[2439.04 --> 2440.18] We do mention that.

[2440.30 --> 2446.56] And we also say at the end of the video that we can't speak to the efficacy of these particular

[2446.56 --> 2448.00] devices at this time.

[2448.32 --> 2451.12] But we say, you know, we're excited to see where this technology heads.

[2451.12 --> 2456.82] Unfortunately, the way that it was presented in this video, it made it look as though we

[2456.82 --> 2460.96] were endorsing the technology and the product in particular, and that we hadn't disclosed

[2460.96 --> 2461.96] some kind of sponsorship.

[2462.24 --> 2463.66] Another note that we have here.

[2463.94 --> 2467.42] I haven't seen our version of this video, to be completely clear, but I know how we make

[2467.42 --> 2467.68] things.

[2467.74 --> 2471.16] We could have done a better job of saying that we hadn't validated it.

[2471.82 --> 2472.24] Fair.

[2472.76 --> 2475.62] But apparently, we do say the company's claims.

[2475.62 --> 2478.64] We don't say that it absolutely works this way.

[2478.76 --> 2481.20] We say that they claim that they work this way.

[2483.16 --> 2491.20] So basically, I just wanted to talk to you guys and say, hey, no, we were not sponsored.

[2491.90 --> 2496.10] Yes, we could have done a better job of making sure that a product that we're using as an

[2496.10 --> 2499.68] example of a technology that we're talking about actually works.

[2500.20 --> 2502.00] And does not come across as endorsed, I guess.

[2502.00 --> 2505.42] And we could do a better job of making sure it doesn't come across as endorsed.

[2505.60 --> 2509.44] But the fact of the matter is, we were not sponsored.

[2509.66 --> 2511.16] We have nothing to do with that company.

[2511.26 --> 2512.32] We've never talked to them.

[2512.62 --> 2515.40] We've made no effort to get our hands on their molecular scanner.

[2515.66 --> 2519.44] And yeah, it's probably BS based on what I've seen so far.

[2520.50 --> 2524.04] The other thing that I also don't know, I have not looked into this.

[2524.10 --> 2526.70] The other thing that I don't know is how the timing lines up.

[2527.00 --> 2530.62] So I don't know if these were actually available to try yet.

[2530.62 --> 2533.96] Oh, okay.

[2534.44 --> 2535.90] At the time that we made the video.

[2536.18 --> 2536.94] So when did we make this?

[2536.94 --> 2541.06] Yeah, we're just going to be a lot more cautious about any pieces we do on emerging technology.

[2541.58 --> 2546.10] But the thing that frustrated me was just that the way it was presented made us look like

[2546.10 --> 2546.98] complete idiots.

[2550.52 --> 2552.28] Well, I think that's kind of his goal, right?

[2552.68 --> 2554.00] Yeah, I guess so.

[2554.14 --> 2555.34] Pretty much that's his shtick.

[2556.00 --> 2558.32] Yeah, that's cool, I guess.

[2558.32 --> 2561.16] All right, so next up.

[2562.12 --> 2563.12] That's a bit of digging.

[2563.32 --> 2564.56] Yeah, that video is kind of old now.

[2565.98 --> 2567.26] Yeah, it's a couple of years old.

[2567.36 --> 2568.42] Nearing a year and a half?

[2569.44 --> 2569.66] Yep.

[2570.68 --> 2572.56] Oh, actually, we've got other news.

[2572.82 --> 2575.32] So this was posted on the forum by Numlock21.

[2575.58 --> 2578.36] And the original article is from videocards.com.

[2578.44 --> 2579.76] So take that for what it is.

[2579.76 --> 2582.64] Let's just be very clear.

[2582.70 --> 2583.52] Oh, actually, hold on.

[2583.56 --> 2584.66] Before we move on.

[2587.26 --> 2590.84] Ranmachan97 asks, are you going to copyright strike them for using your content improperly?

[2591.08 --> 2592.30] No, they haven't actually.

[2593.02 --> 2598.66] Okay, well, we could make the argument that taking it out of context could be improperly.

[2598.66 --> 2602.80] But that's something that we would have to fight in court.

[2603.06 --> 2610.56] That's not something that is as simple as because you used our footage, it has therefore been used improperly.

[2610.62 --> 2612.18] There could be a fair use defense there.

[2612.18 --> 2627.86] If the argument is made that one entity is reporting on something another one has done, that's how you can get around having a whole lot of footage from a movie with just voiceover if you are using it in order to critique the movie.

[2628.64 --> 2633.30] So, no, honestly, normally we wouldn't even bring up something like this.

[2633.30 --> 2643.02] It was just that some members of our community that I actually recognized were in the comment section on that video saying that they thought we were honest and they thought we disclosed our sponsors.

[2643.68 --> 2646.90] And I wanted to make sure that you guys know we do and we did.

[2646.90 --> 2648.24] Never even had contact with them.

[2648.40 --> 2656.02] And we have nothing to do with those guys aside from picking a topic that maybe was a little premature.

[2656.50 --> 2658.60] Someone brought up tarnishes your brand image perhaps.

[2658.76 --> 2660.56] I don't think we're going to do it.

[2660.56 --> 2663.72] We're not really in the market of slamming people too hard.

[2663.74 --> 2666.10] Yeah, we're not really a drama channel.

[2666.38 --> 2666.50] No.

[2666.50 --> 2667.96] We don't really do that.

[2668.30 --> 2682.10] There has been far worse things that people have said about us, but given that they didn't grab the attention of our community, we have just completely ignored them because what's the point of drawing attention to it?

[2682.32 --> 2682.52] Yeah.

[2682.52 --> 2687.84] I mean, all we've really done at this point is give Thunderfoot some more AdSense revenue.

[2687.84 --> 2692.10] And that's really the only thing that you accomplish typically through drama.

[2692.36 --> 2696.16] So I guess I'm going to go off on a tangent here.

[2696.24 --> 2701.74] I guess I'm going to kind of ruin YouTube for a lot of the people that haven't clued into this.

[2702.22 --> 2706.50] But the vast majority of the drama you see is manufactured.

[2706.50 --> 2709.56] Not all of it, but the vast majority.

[2709.58 --> 2712.32] Not all of it, but more than you would probably think.

[2712.40 --> 2718.98] It is mutually beneficial for two entities of some sort or another to be feuding.

[2720.48 --> 2724.10] You know, I wonder if that's the game Samsung and Apple are playing.

[2725.16 --> 2726.42] Like, hold on a second.