this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59389 readers
3461 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rognaut@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

It's unbelievable how much hate for LTT there is on this platform. I like them. No one is perfect. This investigation from a third party is a good thing and the findings are good as well. The statement about defamation, I feel, is warranted because the ex-employee made a ton of very damning claims and really hurt their image. The Fediverse is a great example of this damage.

The hate from this community towards LTT is extreme and unfounded.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad this report showed their innocence but I unsubscribed after the GN/Billet Labs thing.

I might check them out again later but that situation made me kind of uncomfortable with supporting them

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

fwiw, they changed their process and output amount a lot after that

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

According to who?

Tbh I don't trust anyone that reacted the way Linus did in response to GN's investigation or that only changes things once they get called out on it publically.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com -1 points 5 months ago

Okay, let's go back in time, gamers Nexus just releases the video. You're Linus. How do you respond?

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I saw that which is why I'm willing to give them another chance. I really don't think Linus is a scummy guy or anything, they just grew too fast without thinking.

I haven't had a strong desire to get back into the channel but if a video pops up on my feed again, I might resub.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

personally, I think they handled the situation the best way the could.

Gamers Nexus had genuine good criticism, and they took it, took a moment to pause and implemented fixes.

Mistakes happen. And they learned from them

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I agree but it did shake my confidence enough to make me back off. I watched LTT mostly for entertainment (GN for news and reviews) and I've since "filled that spot" so it'll probably only make its way back into my watch list once a different thing falls off.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 4 months ago

I mean they hired a CEO, which is probably what they needed (somebody who actually knows how to run a company).

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The defamation statement was maybe a bit much, but also warranted. People need to know that just throwing accusations out there that are just plainly not true is actually legally problematic.

I also don't get why people feel this is "threatening people who want to speak up in the future".

If your "speaking up" has merit, it's not defarmation. Plain and simple.

Companies make mistakes (and aparently some were made in this case, and dealt with).

But I find it concerning that people also just blindly trust any and all claims that individuals make about these kind of situations. Believe that they are telling the truth, but also verify that this is actually true. The latter part is important. Blind trust is as damaging as not doing anything at all about a proble, There are people out there who get laid off for legitimate reasons, and try to retaliate for that. Even by claiming BS reasons.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I wish you never have to find yourself facing a corporation. The power imbalance is so massive that you feel like an ant, it's the most disempowering experience anyone could face in legal terms. LTT could destroy people's lives and it would be decades if ever, for them to ever have to face consequences.

This is why I always default to believing the individual over the corporation. The corporation has no soul, no heart, no conscience and no remorse. Imagine being a person who wants to speak up about something else you know for certain happened, but a million dollar law firm just put in writing that such kind of thing didn't happen. You have no recourse or power, it's your word against a literal army of lawyers. Regardless of whether the investigation was good or not. The result still has a silencing effect.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The hate from this community towards LTT is extreme and unfounded.

Are you just going to ignore Linus and the companies abhorrent response to the situation? That alone should make anyone lose any respect they had for them.

[–] Aphelion@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, same for me. Linus' response was so stereotypicaly defensive, dismissive and shitty, I lost all trust. Couple that with GN's fact checking of LMGs sloppyness, and I was done ever watching their channel.

[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I just don't like Linus because he's annoying and abuses clickbait thumbnails and titles.

Some of their videos (from other people than himself) are good, but usually I'll avoid LTT content all together.

For that reason I'm not really sure what happened, and I don't really care.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 4 months ago

I just don't like Linus because he's annoying and abuses clickbait thumbnails and titles.

You can blame Google for that. It's just what you have to do to be successful on the platform, and Google does nothing about it. Veritaseum made a whole video about it.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the fact they paid the same party that investigated them is an obvious enough conflict of interest to dismiss this out of hand. Whether the report is actually trustworthy or not, there is an incentive to come to a conclusion that aligns with whomever paid them and that alone should make people question the conclusions being made.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Okay. So what should LTT have done?

Ignore it completely and not respond?

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Invite a third party to do it. The funds could have come from crowd-sourcing.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What.

In what world does this happen?

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's how all the serious stuff in the world are handled.

  1. Courts of law
  2. Open source code
  3. Scientific peer review

Although there's a fair bit of corruption in all if the above platforms, they are consistently better than "I investigated myself and didn't find any evidence" solutions. Mind you, even EY the financial audit giant was caught red handed presenting what their client wanted to say, instead of trying to find the truth. I recommend that you look into this scandal.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That's not what I was referring to. I meant using a commercial third party investigation for the alleged wrongdoings of a company (just like what happened here), except it's funded through crowd sourcing. When has that ever happened?

Like, who is the demographic that would pay for that? In the end, I figure it would still most likely be an invested party coughing up a substantial part of the money.

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Subscribers donating to Gamer Nexus so that they can do investigative journalism without licking manifacturer boots? That's crowd-sourcing. Didn't you watch their recent couple of videos?

Don't forget that that's how this whole fiasco started. Do you think Linus would have done this without GN doing that video? And the viewers giving Linus hell because of it?

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You keep trying to move the conversation to different subjects, but I want to address your initial claim - inviting a third party to do an independent investigation of a company's alleged wrongdoings. I never heard of such a thing occurring.

But fine, let's go with your example.

If there was a scandal at GN, and they'd use that crowd source money to pay for a third party investigation, it would somehow be better than what LMG did now?

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

inviting a third party to do an independent investigation of a company's alleged wrongdoings. I never heard of such a thing occurring.

Look into how IMF (International Monetary Fund) does audits and reviews. They don't do reports proactively. They do it only when invited by a country.

Yes I know you asked for a company but I gave you country. I'll update if a company name comes to my mind that did exactly what I suggested.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, nor does the country crowd source the money for the investigation, so I'm starting to see a pattern in your answers.

Have a good weekend.

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, nor does the country crowd source the money for the investigation,

But they do. IMF pools its money from its member countries, hence crowd sourcing. The country being investigated doesn't pay them.

so I'm starting to see a pattern in your answers.

What pattern is that?

A good weekend for you too.

[–] fatalicus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So you are saying the countries inviting the IMF can be among those countries that pay the IMF?

So that would be a conflict of interest?

[–] puppy@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There won't be a conflict of interest because everyone is paying. So it's not in the best interest of the other member countries if a corrupt country is getting a favourable report. Because their member fees are being wasted. So there's checks and balances inherently built into the system.

So in a hypothetical similar scenario this report requested by LMG is funded by GN, Hardware Unboxed, The Verge and all the other YouTubers including the LMG. So there's incentive to find faults in LMG within the group funding the report.

[–] Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As with corporate mediators though, wouldn't such investigation companies have a financial incentive to favor their clients, so as to improve the odds of being rehired?

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes and no. The reason companies are hiring them is for the image of impartiality they bring. If your firm gets a reputation for just always siding with the company, regardless of what actually happened, that image gets destroyed.

Plus, I'm willing to bet that there's not a whole lot of recurring business from individual companies for this type of service. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being the "neutral third party".

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago
[–] ealoe@ani.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you're one of the people in this thread insisting this does nothing to exonerate LTT, what would you accept as evidence that they're innocent? I don't follow YouTube drama much at all, I just think it's wild when people form an opinion based on on set of statements and then are never open to learning more facts about the case ever again.

[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Receipts. The actual data used to come to these conclusions. I have worked with attorneys in corporate law firms in some capacity for almost 20 years and while I am not a lawyer I can confidently say they don't take these engagements to find the truth. They do it to prep for a case and to build a chain of events that show they are acting in good faith increasing their chances filing a motion to dismiss while identifying liability and building a defense. The one point they conceded regarding her claims that they lied in onboarding the attorneys are basically saying if that case gets filed there is a high chance a judge will find it has merit and move it forward. Idk of Canada court system is the same but in America thats corporate lawyer for youd probably pay a settlement or damages on this point.

[–] ealoe@ani.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What if that standard were to be applied to the people making the assertions? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the accuser, not the accused? Seems kinda backwards the way you described it, someone can just say some things about you and now you are obligated to release internal documents/chat logs/emails or whatever else to prove their assertions wrong?

[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

No they're not obligated to release anything, and neither is she. In a situation like this its up to the observer to form their own opinions. People will take each parties past and future actions in account as well. It is very believable to me that LTT has a toxic culture based purely on the upload schedule and past conflict with other reviewers and product startups. I think most of the claims were descriptive enough to be believable although some may have been exaggerated and painted by the whistleblowers past experience such as the bait and switch onboarding. My opinion doesn't really matter though, im just going to stop interacting with LTT based on how theyve reacted and conducted themselves over multiple public incidents.

Generally speaking, the employer has all the power and own the records which would prove the whistleblower right or wrong and it is much more difficult to retain that information as an employee. The power imbalance in the relationship and the role of the company as custodian of records here is what changes the expectation. Power imbalance is what has caused high profile people with money and fame to get away with bad behavior for thousands of years so society is working to address that now. Not going to be perfect at first but its a good start