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.
What part of “we paid these guys and they said we’re fine” do you not? Why would they choose and pay and release the results from a company they didn’t trust to clear them?
I’m not saying it’s rotten, but the fact that the third party was unilaterally chosen by and paid for LMG makes all the results pretty questionable.
My guy, that’s a common business practice. If the third party skewed the results to favor their client, they risk massive reputation and monetary losses.
That’s how any auditing works.
Look up Arthur Andersen and what happened to them.
You kinda inherently do when you post on a public forum, the other guy’s being a bit of a dick, but you can’t just expect a circlejerk whenever you post your opinion
I don’t understand why LTT wouldn’t negotiate a settlement first with the accuser in exchange for a nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreement before releasing any statement. You could view their posturing as defiance.
Yes. Correct. A person made accusations and those accusations were exaggerated by cowboy journalism in part by gamer Nexus and various other YouTube channels.
They are most definitely being definite. And if they were to agree to some kind of out of court settlement with a nondisclosure agreement it wouldn’t be made public.
The problem is the repuational damage, and subsequently financial damage to the brand.
A not ingsificant number of people unsubscribed and stoped watch watching their videos.
More importantly sponsors could stop sponsoring them because they don’t the association - just as we’ve seen LMG drop sponsors over the years.
If they just settled this quietly, the assumption would be the settlement was an admittion of guilt.
Assuming the allagations are false, the defimation suit is a legimate response - for a business model that relys on sponsors and reputation, having that damaged is a big deal financially.
In realty, there is nothing to gain to from pursing the case - a business going after an individual is a horrible idea for PR and the individual isn’t going to have the money to make up the cost anyways.
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.
I have no issue with LTT as a whole, I just really don’t like Linus. He portrays an almost weaponized incompetence in a lot of computing topics and doesn’t accurately represent his own lack of understanding to the audience that couldn’t tell on their own. By all accounts there is one hell of a team working there, they just chose a really bad face to represent the actual content.
It’s unbelievable how much hate for LTT there is on this platform.
They have a huge reach and tremendous influence, but are not always conscientious, careful, and thorough as they should be given their sway. Still, that doesn’t justify the vitriol.
It’s important to remember that the people who are okay with this report probably won’t speak up. Those who find reasons to not be okay will speak loudly. Personally, I take reports like this with a grain of salt and an assumption we are told only the good or neutral bits. I then decide if those bits are enough to constitute good will. In this I feel they are.
He said previously that he also dislikes the clickbait thumbnails, but they do it because it works. If they adhered to what the enthusiasts wanted their view counts would drop and they wouldn’t be able to have so many employees on payroll.
He said previously that he also dislikes the clickbait thumbnails, but they do it because it works. If they adhered to what the enthusiasts wanted their view counts would drop and they wouldn’t be able to have so many employees on payroll.
I watch almost all of the LTT videos as well as most of the videos across all the other LMG channels. While I think I’d probably get along really well with Linus as a friend or acquaintance, and I don’t necessarily have any issue with him as a person, he has had some pretty irritating takes and used his bully pit to essentially swat away or mock legitimate criticism on his takes. Usually about things that are outside of his core competencies. The ones that come to mind are some of the things he has said about unions (he’s not anti Union to be clear), the backpack, car dependency in North America, and worker cooperatives.
I personally think it would be pretty interesting if he had experts in those areas come on the WAN show to talk about those things. Instead he does the super ADHD thing (something he has admitted he has, and something I have definitely recognized him doing having had a partner with severe ADHD exhibit similar behaviors) where he spends seconds finding an article, skims it not noting much nuance, and then somehow simultaneously says something confidently while also saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He often wants the best of both worlds. He wants to be taken seriously while also being given the latitude to joke around and just make hot takes.
Even with all that said, as stated above, I will still watch most of his videos and wish him well. Recognizing the flaws in something I enjoy doesn’t mean I hate something, especially if I take the time to voice it. It usually means I care and I want to see something I like or that is good improve and get better.
That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.
So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).
The summary could’ve been an official statement from the lawfirm in formal letterhead, without unnecessary legal threats. But I’m not PR on LTT, so what do I know. They just keep fumbling and bumbling about like the idiots they collectively are.
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.
At my work we pay auditors to assess our security controls and I would chose a different company if I thought they were being anything less than honest with us on their findings. The agreements and SOW are set up at the beginning of the engagement, so the investigators get paid regardless of their findings. It’s not like the bond rating agencies on Wall Street.
There’s a difference in stakes and impact and intent: the client firm is actively interested in finding security holes and the outcome of a negative security report does not (usually) directly affect the continuing operations of the business or impact on the personal reputations of the business owners their ability to conduct business, or how moral they’re perceived by society.
A negative report here would be a devastating blow on Linus himself, his business is built around him and relies on audiences trusting him, it would also open up the door for legal action that could result in massive monetary damages and fines.
I’ve had “independent” valuations and audits. I’ve seen how these firms work - and it’s not independent. They obey the people that pay them or they don’t get any work in the future from anyone else “that firm destroyed my business”.
The most suspect aspect of the report is that they found nothing negative, everything was perfect. This on its face doesn’t ring true for any business I’ve ever seen, as well as how they responded to the accusations and how many people came out to accuse them.
You don’t think it’s possible that the accusations were mostly unfounded and the LTT crew are just decent people? They did bring up some issues with onboarding which are completely expected on smaller companies.
It’s entirely possible that literally everything she claimed was false or exaggerated but there’s still enough evidence of Linus acting less than decently on the WAN show with regard to his other actions that cast doubt.
The man who took another company’s prototype and auctioned it off then claimed that they already had an agreement before contacting them somehow had zero evidence of abuse of power? We should assume that his willingness to abuse his power ends at his businesses doorstep because some of his co-workers are decent people?
Of course it’s possible. But after that devastating Gamers Nexus debacle, Linus being actively dismissing of peoples concerns until it became a public issue, the multiple employees saying they were worked off their feet unable to do their job properly, and generally being a toxic environment… this firm gives it a perfectly clean bill of health - that’s not likely.
yeah, lets remember that the sexual misconduct allegations were just a part of a far larger overall issue with regards to LTT. From Linus being a cunt about warranties, to stealing prototypes and refusing to return them, to lying to the public about having to come to an agreement with the said victims of the theft before ever having even contacted the victims in the first place, to putting out a fake apology video where they joke about the actual crimes they committed.
and this firm they paid saying they are clear does nothing to absolve them from all the other shitty, asshole, dishonest shit they’ve done, nor does it make Linus any less of a cunt.
Yep, the law firm here says anything bad and they’re opening themselves for ltt being sued by ex employee. And if employee loses ltt will go after law firm for defamation.
Because the acuser cannot afford it. And you take issue with the company doing it. An unrelated 3rd party thst gains nothing wod literally just be losing money for no gain at all. So a non-profit or charity.
So you advocate for charities underwriting corporate sexual assault investigations instead of the companies involved?
I really key in on the language of these types of releases. First is,
To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same.
So… keeping yo mouth shut is not ensuring a “fair investigation.” It’s protecting yourself.
Next, phrases like,
Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.
Is not proof of anything- other than there was no proof. That’s why you hire a third party to speak for you. Instead of you saying, “I didn’t do it,” (which of course almost anyone would - true or not) the “independent” investigator can say, “I didn’t find any proof.”
The strongest language here,
Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.
…is interesting. I guess it depends on what they mean by “addressed.” If I slapped a colleague on the back and said, “That was hilarious!”, I hardly ignored it. You could even say I addressed it.
I’m not saying I believe I’ve way or the other. All I’m pointing out is this means basically nothing.
Assume for a moment the investigators were acting in good faith and knew what they were doing. They are still only able to find what they are given access to, and evidence that wasn’t destroyed. LTT is not the most technically competent staff in the world, but I bet if those guys know how to do anything technical, covering their tracks is probably high on that list.
I’m not skeptical of the firm that was hired. I’m skeptical that LTT and gang didn’t scrub everything before handing over the keys. We know LTT aren’t dumb, and we know they are unethical.
I understand my argument falls into “can’t prove a negative” territory. I’m going on instincts. The main dude has techbro-creep energy. Reminds me of a Blizzard executive. The whole thing stinks of a South Park apology episode to me.
I understand you can’t put someone in jail over instincts. I wouldn’t want that, either. That’s not how the system should work.
But it’s 100% OK to stop following some dumbass YouTuber because you trust your instincts.
I’d rather get my tech infotainment elsewhere. It’s a big wide world out there on the internet. LTT isn’t the only game in town. And honestly, they were never that great to begin with. Their methodologies are lousy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
“We’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong”
Is anyone shocked?
e: imagine being so pathetic you get your rocks off by being a ltt boot licker. Oh wait at least 50 of you don’t need to imagine that do you.
How would you suggest a firm to investigate wrongdoings other than asking a third party to do it?
Okay, they’ve found themselves to have do nothing wrong and are threatening a defamation suit. Another great, “Trust me Bro.” moment here.
Maybe they should focus more on doing reviews and testing methodologies that don’t suck.
What part about “third party” do you not understand?
What part of “we paid these guys and they said we’re fine” do you not? Why would they choose and pay and release the results from a company they didn’t trust to clear them?
I’m not saying it’s rotten, but the fact that the third party was unilaterally chosen by and paid for LMG makes all the results pretty questionable.
My guy, that’s a common business practice. If the third party skewed the results to favor their client, they risk massive reputation and monetary losses.
That’s how any auditing works.
Look up Arthur Andersen and what happened to them.
What part of I don’t have any trust in that company don’t you understand. I bet you’re a huge fan of “third party” arbitration too.
Then move on with your life. There’s literally nothing that could ever change your mind, so arguing with you is even more fruitless than usual.
I certainly didn’t ask you your opinion on a public forum.
You kinda inherently do when you post on a public forum, the other guy’s being a bit of a dick, but you can’t just expect a circlejerk whenever you post your opinion
To be fair, there were lots of words to read
That changes my perspective on them a lot. Well, another lesson taken - don’t jump too quickly onto conclusions.
I don’t understand why LTT wouldn’t negotiate a settlement first with the accuser in exchange for a nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreement before releasing any statement. You could view their posturing as defiance.
Yes. Correct. A person made accusations and those accusations were exaggerated by cowboy journalism in part by gamer Nexus and various other YouTube channels.
They are most definitely being definite. And if they were to agree to some kind of out of court settlement with a nondisclosure agreement it wouldn’t be made public.
I don’t think GamersNexus covered Madison’s case? I know they covered Billet Labs and the performance metrics being off though
The problem is the repuational damage, and subsequently financial damage to the brand. A not ingsificant number of people unsubscribed and stoped watch watching their videos. More importantly sponsors could stop sponsoring them because they don’t the association - just as we’ve seen LMG drop sponsors over the years.
If they just settled this quietly, the assumption would be the settlement was an admittion of guilt.
Assuming the allagations are false, the defimation suit is a legimate response - for a business model that relys on sponsors and reputation, having that damaged is a big deal financially.
In realty, there is nothing to gain to from pursing the case - a business going after an individual is a horrible idea for PR and the individual isn’t going to have the money to make up the cost anyways.
that’s probably what the accuser wanted and i respect the refusal
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.
I have no issue with LTT as a whole, I just really don’t like Linus. He portrays an almost weaponized incompetence in a lot of computing topics and doesn’t accurately represent his own lack of understanding to the audience that couldn’t tell on their own. By all accounts there is one hell of a team working there, they just chose a really bad face to represent the actual content.
Just my personal take for what it’s worth.
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
They have a huge reach and tremendous influence, but are not always conscientious, careful, and thorough as they should be given their sway. Still, that doesn’t justify the vitriol.
It’s important to remember that the people who are okay with this report probably won’t speak up. Those who find reasons to not be okay will speak loudly. Personally, I take reports like this with a grain of salt and an assumption we are told only the good or neutral bits. I then decide if those bits are enough to constitute good will. In this I feel they are.
So good job: LTT.
Yeah, I definitely see that now. The loud ones are apparently all I saw.
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.
He said previously that he also dislikes the clickbait thumbnails, but they do it because it works. If they adhered to what the enthusiasts wanted their view counts would drop and they wouldn’t be able to have so many employees on payroll.
Maybe, whatever. It’s just too annoying for me to click on that shit.
He said previously that he also dislikes the clickbait thumbnails, but they do it because it works. If they adhered to what the enthusiasts wanted their view counts would drop and they wouldn’t be able to have so many employees on payroll.
I watch almost all of the LTT videos as well as most of the videos across all the other LMG channels. While I think I’d probably get along really well with Linus as a friend or acquaintance, and I don’t necessarily have any issue with him as a person, he has had some pretty irritating takes and used his bully pit to essentially swat away or mock legitimate criticism on his takes. Usually about things that are outside of his core competencies. The ones that come to mind are some of the things he has said about unions (he’s not anti Union to be clear), the backpack, car dependency in North America, and worker cooperatives.
I personally think it would be pretty interesting if he had experts in those areas come on the WAN show to talk about those things. Instead he does the super ADHD thing (something he has admitted he has, and something I have definitely recognized him doing having had a partner with severe ADHD exhibit similar behaviors) where he spends seconds finding an article, skims it not noting much nuance, and then somehow simultaneously says something confidently while also saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He often wants the best of both worlds. He wants to be taken seriously while also being given the latitude to joke around and just make hot takes.
Even with all that said, as stated above, I will still watch most of his videos and wish him well. Recognizing the flaws in something I enjoy doesn’t mean I hate something, especially if I take the time to voice it. It usually means I care and I want to see something I like or that is good improve and get better.
I mean I guess its slightly reassuring. Truth is, its hard to trust a “moderator” that you paid for. Its just the nature of how shit works.
That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.
So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).
The thing is that it’s the best they can do, which is about all we can ask for. No one is going to do a good job at the investigation for free.
The summary could’ve been an official statement from the lawfirm in formal letterhead, without unnecessary legal threats. But I’m not PR on LTT, so what do I know. They just keep fumbling and bumbling about like the idiots they collectively are.
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.
At my work we pay auditors to assess our security controls and I would chose a different company if I thought they were being anything less than honest with us on their findings. The agreements and SOW are set up at the beginning of the engagement, so the investigators get paid regardless of their findings. It’s not like the bond rating agencies on Wall Street.
There’s a difference in stakes and impact and intent: the client firm is actively interested in finding security holes and the outcome of a negative security report does not (usually) directly affect the continuing operations of the business or impact on the personal reputations of the business owners their ability to conduct business, or how moral they’re perceived by society.
A negative report here would be a devastating blow on Linus himself, his business is built around him and relies on audiences trusting him, it would also open up the door for legal action that could result in massive monetary damages and fines.
I’ve had “independent” valuations and audits. I’ve seen how these firms work - and it’s not independent. They obey the people that pay them or they don’t get any work in the future from anyone else “that firm destroyed my business”.
The most suspect aspect of the report is that they found nothing negative, everything was perfect. This on its face doesn’t ring true for any business I’ve ever seen, as well as how they responded to the accusations and how many people came out to accuse them.
You don’t think it’s possible that the accusations were mostly unfounded and the LTT crew are just decent people? They did bring up some issues with onboarding which are completely expected on smaller companies.
It’s entirely possible that literally everything she claimed was false or exaggerated but there’s still enough evidence of Linus acting less than decently on the WAN show with regard to his other actions that cast doubt.
The man who took another company’s prototype and auctioned it off then claimed that they already had an agreement before contacting them somehow had zero evidence of abuse of power? We should assume that his willingness to abuse his power ends at his businesses doorstep because some of his co-workers are decent people?
Of course it’s possible. But after that devastating Gamers Nexus debacle, Linus being actively dismissing of peoples concerns until it became a public issue, the multiple employees saying they were worked off their feet unable to do their job properly, and generally being a toxic environment… this firm gives it a perfectly clean bill of health - that’s not likely.
yeah, lets remember that the sexual misconduct allegations were just a part of a far larger overall issue with regards to LTT. From Linus being a cunt about warranties, to stealing prototypes and refusing to return them, to lying to the public about having to come to an agreement with the said victims of the theft before ever having even contacted the victims in the first place, to putting out a fake apology video where they joke about the actual crimes they committed.
and this firm they paid saying they are clear does nothing to absolve them from all the other shitty, asshole, dishonest shit they’ve done, nor does it make Linus any less of a cunt.
Yep, the law firm here says anything bad and they’re opening themselves for ltt being sued by ex employee. And if employee loses ltt will go after law firm for defamation.
deleted by creator
Who else should pay them?
deleted by creator
So, a charity should fund it?
Because the acuser cannot afford it. And you take issue with the company doing it. An unrelated 3rd party thst gains nothing wod literally just be losing money for no gain at all. So a non-profit or charity.
So you advocate for charities underwriting corporate sexual assault investigations instead of the companies involved?
Maybe the journalists that levelled the accusations public ally should contribute?
Shut up
deleted by creator
Get off my internet
deleted by creator
Deleted by creator
I really key in on the language of these types of releases. First is,
So… keeping yo mouth shut is not ensuring a “fair investigation.” It’s protecting yourself.
Next, phrases like,
Is not proof of anything- other than there was no proof. That’s why you hire a third party to speak for you. Instead of you saying, “I didn’t do it,” (which of course almost anyone would - true or not) the “independent” investigator can say, “I didn’t find any proof.”
The strongest language here,
…is interesting. I guess it depends on what they mean by “addressed.” If I slapped a colleague on the back and said, “That was hilarious!”, I hardly ignored it. You could even say I addressed it.
I’m not saying I believe I’ve way or the other. All I’m pointing out is this means basically nothing.
Yup. The weasel words are very telling (for those with eyes to see).
Assume for a moment the investigators were acting in good faith and knew what they were doing. They are still only able to find what they are given access to, and evidence that wasn’t destroyed. LTT is not the most technically competent staff in the world, but I bet if those guys know how to do anything technical, covering their tracks is probably high on that list.
I’m not skeptical of the firm that was hired. I’m skeptical that LTT and gang didn’t scrub everything before handing over the keys. We know LTT aren’t dumb, and we know they are unethical.
I understand my argument falls into “can’t prove a negative” territory. I’m going on instincts. The main dude has techbro-creep energy. Reminds me of a Blizzard executive. The whole thing stinks of a South Park apology episode to me.
I understand you can’t put someone in jail over instincts. I wouldn’t want that, either. That’s not how the system should work.
But it’s 100% OK to stop following some dumbass YouTuber because you trust your instincts.
I’d rather get my tech infotainment elsewhere. It’s a big wide world out there on the internet. LTT isn’t the only game in town. And honestly, they were never that great to begin with. Their methodologies are lousy.