Google’s Pixel 9 launch was proceeding smoothly. Like other tech journalists and influencers, I was provided with information about the upcoming products well ahead of launch and many traveled to Google’s headquarters to check out the new devices in person and interview those behind them.

The initial responses were positive. Despite concerns about the leaked image of the new camera bump, opinions changed after the reveal—many loved the new look, and the premium build quality seemed to justify the price increase on the Pro models.

However, two controversies overtook tech Twitter, which, despite numerous videos and articles, have amounted to nothing.

The first involved an accusation by Arun Maini, Britain’s largest tech YouTuber, known as Mrwhosetheboss on YouTube, who suggested that Google was blacklisting him due to previous negative coverage. On August 15, Mr. Maini tweeted, “We didn’t get an invite to the Google Pixel event this year;” he noted that despite contacting “multiple different Google contacts,” he hadn’t “heard anything back” and grandstanded that “We were critical of the last-gen Pixel devices, but that shouldn’t be a reason to not be included in this year’s launch,” adding that he stands by his previous criticism.

Commenters were split into two camps: one claimed that Google was being“real shady” and that “blacklisting” Mrwhosetheboss will “bite them back hard,” while the other argued that Maini deserved this after years of supposedly unfair coverage of Google.

Both sides are wrong, partly because they’re reacting to a false statement.

To start, with the exception of Apple, tech companies do not withdraw access because a journalist or influencer was too critical. And even if Google were to start doing this, Mr. Maini would hardly be a target. Mrwhosetheboss is among the least substantive and interesting channels on YouTube, and the reason he has one of the largest followings is precisely because his coverage is basic and flashy, appealing largely to minors—who aren’t a core market for new phones. He’s the Mr. Beast of tech YouTube, and his coverage is more thoughtless and fawning than particularly sharp-edged.

Consider my coverage of their products in the Sun. Though I was positive about the Pixel 8A, I advised against buying it immediately, noting that Google steeply discounts their phones—a point they would prefer not to highlight—and described their flagship Pixel Fold as “one of the worst phones on sale.” Our review was harsher than any other; I noted that despite getting the Fold for free as a review unit, I don’t want to use it, and if I won’t use it for free, how could I recommend anyone to buy it? I have also previously recommended other search engines, such as Kagi, instead of Google, and have been very critical of their handling of YouTube, which I argue should be spun out of Alphabet in an antitrust action.

This is far harsher than anything Maini has or would ever say, yet I was still given access to information about the Pixel 9 line before launch and have been sent review samples. Google is among the very best companies at handling negative feedback and communicating with the press, so the notion that Maini was being “blacklisted” is facially absurd. Two days after his whiny tweet, Mr. Maini tweeted out a photo of his new Pixel 9 Pro, which Google swiftly sent him.

In his telling, this was due to “some sort of pretty large internal miscommunication,” but I don’t believe it for a second. Their UK public relations team has always been highly responsive and communicative, particularly around the Pixel 9 launch. The idea that I was prioritized over Britain’s largest tech influencer is flattering but ridiculous. If his team had trouble contacting Google, that’s their problem, not Google’s.

The second controversy concerns Google’s #TeamPixel campaign. For the unfamiliar, Team Pixel is an influencer program where notable social media personalities can get early access to Pixel phones if approved and if they abide by Google’s contract requests.

This is different from a journalist like myself being provided with review units. I agree to embargos and sign NDAs confirming that I won’t leak information before the product launch, but beyond that, the company has no control or influence over my coverage.

By contrast, Team Pixel is an influencer campaign run by the public relations agency 1000heads, where social media personalities agree to post content about the new, unreleased phone with the hashtag #TeamPixel, and in exchange, they get to keep the free phone. The controversy this year stemmed from a screenshot of their 2024 application survey, which stated that if an influencer is approved, they are “expected to feature the Google Pixel device in place of any competitor mobile devices” and that “if it appears other brands are being preferred over the Pixel, we will need to cease the relationship between the brand and the creator.”

This caused a lot of hubbub, with various people saying this tarnished the reputation of those participating in the TeamPixel program—that it questioned the reliability of their view on the product—but of course, their judgment is partial. They are publicly branding themselves as being on a company’s “team” just by using the hashtag and are getting early free access to the product just to show it off. Who would possibly expect an influencer waving a company’s flag to be a neutral party?

To make a comparative example, imagine a popular fashion influencer tweeting out a picture of themselves in Raiders gear, sitting in some of the best seats in Allegiant Stadium with the hashtag #TeamRaiders. Would you doubt which team they supported? Would you trust their judgment on NFL teams? And would it make a difference if they had or hadn’t signed a contract explicitly saying they would support the Raiders over the visiting team?

Both of these “scandals” are ridiculous hubbubs created by deeply unserious people. But if you are actually interested in the new Pixel products, keep an eye out for my reviews coming soon to The New York Sun.