The answer starts at the 10’07” mark of that video. Basically he admits that he believes the technician put the scratch on the TV. The problem is that the call to Samsung happened a week after the technician’s visit. You mean to tell me that this guy suspected that the tech made the scratch himself but this guy never bothers to review the footage before calling Samsung? But at the same time he’s paranoid enough to record the tech because they mounted one of his TVs wrong. Just not paranoid enough to review the footage after a scratch is found on the screen. Something doesn’t add up.
I don’t understand why anyone would fake this… So a stranger could make a small annoyance to a massive corporation for 4 hours before it disappears into the 24h news cycle?
Found the original video made by he owner where he explains why he choose to record the technician: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLimCcnee9c
The answer starts at the 10’07” mark of that video. Basically he admits that he believes the technician put the scratch on the TV. The problem is that the call to Samsung happened a week after the technician’s visit. You mean to tell me that this guy suspected that the tech made the scratch himself but this guy never bothers to review the footage before calling Samsung? But at the same time he’s paranoid enough to record the tech because they mounted one of his TVs wrong. Just not paranoid enough to review the footage after a scratch is found on the screen. Something doesn’t add up.
You are so dishonest, the technicians said he would return, when that didn’t happen within a week, he called Samsung again.
I don’t understand why anyone would fake this… So a stranger could make a small annoyance to a massive corporation for 4 hours before it disappears into the 24h news cycle?
I wish they explained more in that comment.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=lLimCcnee9c
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.