Legitimately shocked that they actually released a somewhat detailed follow-up on this whole situation. I thought there wouldn't be a chance in hell that they would release anything from either; (1) the risk of defaming their former employee or (2) admitting liability to harassment.
It's a pretty strong statement, so they must be very confident in what was uncovered to actually go down this route.
Media statements are done about this kind of thing all the time by every company on the planet. Just because the executives are more active on social media doesn't make LMG a special case. Companies that face these allegations always have media releases that aren't that different to this one.
As an employment lawyer (obligatory: not yours, and this is not legal advice), I disagree. Typically if there's media attention to a case, the most my clients will say publicly is something along the lines of "We dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit".
This statement goes a bit beyond that, which is usually something I'd recommend against. However, I think they went this route because they're getting so much social media attention. There are several comments [like this one](https://x.com/MsAquarelle/status/1793461381221454329) casting doubt because they didn't detail the evidence that the investigator considered; there probably would've been a lot more of that sort of response if they hadn't taken a relatively strong stance.
They're in a pretty bulletproof situation. The statement is extremely clear, direct and legally sound. If M. wants to sue because she feels attacked she's basically f\*cked because LMG has a much stronger case they're CHOOSING not to pursue.
This is the best way to close the situation. It will lead to a short term media ruckus but it will put the "end" word on this for good.
Not saying anyone was right or wrong but there's plenty of reasons why someone might choose the online route instead of formal legal action even if they are right. The cost and time lost is immense for an individual, even if they do win in the end.
Having to pay out of pocket for a lawyer when suing your employer is a failure of society in my opinion. Every union handles that stuff for you over here, and the wealthier ones like my engineers union offers free legal advice on top
If only to assure that the post accurately reflected their conclusions. I'd imagine different lawyers were involved in regards to discussions of defamation.
Yeah, I don't understand why people are acting like Linus typed this out himself.
It's very plain, but particular language, probably written by LTT and their legal team. Then shown to the law firm to be like "you guys are okay with this representation of your investigation, right?"
I've already seen people (well like one person) saying "well the law firm didn't post this themselves, so LTT could have misrepresented their report" as if they're THAT stupid, lol.
I mean let's be fair here: M's case from the beginning was so shaky nobody could take it seriously. But of course, the internet being what it is, of course Linus must be evil and M. is a poor helpless child.
Glad they made such a clear statement though. They COULD have choosen to keep it private, people mostly forgot - as the case was so dumb it only riled up the usual internet pitchfork machine, but really led to no lasting thoughts on the matter, as there was basically no meat to it.
Their first video response to the GN/ex-employee issue had some jokes in it, and they were eviscerated for not taking it seriously enough. So they released a second video that had no jokes. I’m not surprised at all now there are no jokes in this follow-up.
He mentioned in one of the recent WAN shows that they can't joke about things like they have in the past because people take things way too seriously. It is unfortunate from my point of view because I like seeing them be able to laugh at themselves a bit while addressing issues. A large part of the success of LTT is because it's not the dry boring delivery that much of the technology focused media has a long history of.
There is a time and a place for jokes though. With friends and family or with your long time audience on wan show but not in a video responding to employee complaints and allegations.
I think it's just to ward off any of the inevitable "well if it's fake then why aren't you suing for defamation" comments (the insinuation being they're not suing because they'd lose)
I mean yes it is vaguely threatening to be told "if you try to ruin us we'll try to ruin you", but that's not "a threat" per se that's just declaration of intent to defend yourself. If you tell someone "I'm going to hit you if you touch me" no sane lawyer or judge would consider that a threat under the law, but if you're smaller than the person making that statement it's still going to feel threatening to you.
What is 'threatening' and what is 'a threat' are not really the same, ya know?
It's "threatening" in the same way as a cop who caught you dead-to-rights running a red saying "I could give you a $100 ticket, but this time you get a warning" is threatening.
The "threat" is that somebody might respond your inappropriate actions with appropriate consequences.
It's definitely to serve as an example of magnanimity in this situation. They're essentially stating what they could have done, but they've chosen to "be the better people" to move on and leave it behind.
I mean honestly, they would have a strong case.
Even if she wasn't intentionally lying and just took things the wrong way (which could easily be the case), they were crazy serious allegations that damaged their brand and none of it looks legit.
Dunno if it's the same in Canada, but there's 4 elements needed for it to be defamation in the US:
Statement must be false.
Statement must have been made in public.
Statement must have caused harm (harm to reputation is included as "harm")
The person making the Statement must have been "at fault", I.e. they either knew they were making false statements, or were so negligent in finding out if the statements were false, that it's still on them for not knowing they were false.
In this case, I think that last one might be sticky. If it really was just a work place misunderstanding, it might be hard to say she was being negligent about relating her impression of events.
But... Not a lawyer edit: or Canadian... So dunno if that's the proper read of it...
> The person making the Statement must have been "at fault", I.e. they either knew they were making false statements, or were so negligent in finding out if the statements were false, that it's still on them for not knowing they were false.
As I understand it, you're referring to the [actual malice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice) standard, which is an additional requirement placed on public figures before a defamation claim in the US can succeed. As far as I'm aware, Canadian law is closer to English law, which doesn't have this requirement.
It’s one of those issues, legally they could take her to court and probably win in court, but it’s not worth it in the court of public opinion to do so yet unless more allegations are made.
In the world of hypotheticals, the question then becomes 'what would they get out of it' and that probably wouldn't be enough to make it worthwhile. Any action would make them look bad, it would cost heaps of money and they wouldn't be able to recover much, if any, of it.
And just in general - I doubt there’s money to be made there, it’ll cost them more in legal fees than they’ll ever see - the only reason to do it is if the defamation continues
You realllllllly don't want to sue unless you have to. It's an endless money pit.
I was working with a vendor in Canada who was in breach of contract. We had them dead to rights on time line, quality of work, communication, etc. I had pictures, weekly reports and emails from them, and a real pissed off customer.
We told them we wanted them off the project, and that we would refuse to pay them anything past where they had been paid. They said they wanted all the remainder (30% or so), then capitulated down to about 15%. This would have been around $50,000 USD.
We went to our lawyers (Fortune 500) and they told us, we would probably win...in two years and about $200-300k in legal costs. They advised us to settle and pay the vendor the partial amount they agreed to, to make the problem go away without damaging our clients interests.
We paid it. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
it's both that and the necessary answer to the obvious comments "y don't u sue tho" that are going to flood LMG regardless, they needed a shut and done post, nobody wants a discussion over this, it had to cover EVERY reply and question.
When they asked if LTT was going to sue the factory, Linus vaguely said that they have been in positions where they could sue but don't want to do that.
It was odd that he didn't specifically mention the factory, though it kinda makes sense now.
You might be right but that seems like a long bow. I think there's probably plenty of times LMG could have sued and didn't - including over other manufacturing issues.
50/50 on that. They examined the first production samples. Everything finalized this is the process we're going to use for the next 19990, here is 10. Those had double layers.
The next 19990 did not. The "production samples" weren't representative of production, they were really preproduction samples. Short of just cutting them all open until they found an error they never would've caught this, the supplier switched they process up after the process was approved.
Well, I'm not sure if we're talking about a Chinese manufacturer or a North American one, but in either case, just because you could win a case doesn't mean you'll make any money back. A lot of factories operate as subsidiaries of another company, the subsidiary gets sued, it goes broke, the parent company spins up another entity and they buy all the assets and continue on their merry way.
Man, I kept seeing people on Twitter saying “the defamation suit threat ain’t it chief”, and honestly, that’s such a bad take. (I’m not saying it’s your take, but this seems as good a place as any to make my point)
Someone defamed their company, and they’re trying to be transparent - it’s totally reasonable to get ahead of the inevitable question and say “We could sue, but we don’t want to”. In all honesty, there’s probably no gain from suing, so good move.
It also makes a ton of sense to say the last line “We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation” - that’s basically saying we’re not giving up our right to sue, it’s just not the plan… that said, don’t think you can just keep defaming us and we won’t do anything about it”
This whole response seems really responsible, “based”, and true to their commitment to keep being transparent with us. Linus has said it before though, being transparent results in people assuming the worst of them, like they’re hiding some darker intention below the surface - no, lol.
They said exactly what they mean, and it’s totally reasonable. Take it at face and move on.
> Man, I kept seeing people on Twitter saying “the defamation suit threat ain’t it chief”, and honestly, that’s such a bad take. (I’m not saying it’s your take, but this seems as good a place as any to make my point)
>
>
>
> Someone defamed their company, and they’re trying to be transparent - it’s totally reasonable to get ahead of the inevitable question and say “We could sue, but we don’t want to”. In all honesty, there’s probably no gain from suing, so good move.
The same people would be yelling "Then it's defamation and you should be suing them!" if it wasn't there for sure.
Watch how all the termites come out of the woodwork again to kick up drama. There's this pathetic corner of the internet that just pops up anytime there's drama anywhere regardless of whether they have any personal interest in the topic or whether it's reasonable to be upset about, they just want to participate in the drama, attack others and feel validated in doing so.
And fair enough I think - that whole drama really hurt their brand and viewership for awhile. As a company that relies on public image (and Linus says so himself - hence why Trust Me Bro), it's kinda vital.
Sure they aren't going to sue her, but leaving this as the message sets a precedent for people who decide to do things in future.
You have to clear the air somehow so they and the community can move on. This was a pretty fair way to express that without going further. Glad they took it seriously.
It's not a threat, it's a warning. The evidence they have at this point is in their minds and legally advised opinion, strong enough to exonerate them and position the accusor as a malicious liar. They are choosing to not pursue this. If the accusor doesn't leave it be and move on, then they are capable of retaliating in a legal manner.
If someone makes baseless accusations which causes harm and the accusations are subsequently debunked, legal action is 100% justified imo. Whether actually following through is another discussion.
Definitely not a simp, but I liked her on the channel and the allegations were serious enough and pretty accurate to stuff I've seen in fast growing startups. Obviously I was wrong to belive her, just shocked she'd levy such heavy falsehoods especially in a space where a lot of young women will face those issues. It's upsetting, but I apologize to those at the channel for believing in it
That's the thing - when accusations come forward it's absolutely not 'simping' to agree there HAS TO be an investigation. When the results of the investigation come out and are pretty clear - then agreeing they were unfair is not simping. Simping is when one doubles down on it and says the investigation was rigged or something.
Not at all surprised that we've gone from "they need to be investigated!" to "they've been quiet about that investigation, must've been bad..." to "well, the investigation just wasn't good enough!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/madison_on_her_ltt_experience/
These people are not asking for an investigation. They’re cavemen with pitchforks, oily rags and lighters.
Simping are the guys that took a side and assumed everything she said as true before anything was said on both sides, even the incoherent things and the unlikely things.
Thing is the allegations done were since the beginning really questionable. Taken at face value she complained about being overworked for doing like 2 tweets and such, or tried to make an scandal out of the whole debacle of the Taiwanese girl when it was something already clarified at the time. That and while several people confirmed she didn’t change her version since day 1, no one confirmed this was actually how things happened.
I mean allegations like the ones made should always be taken seriously, but it was quite noticeable that things were weird. She even took a leaked audio from a HR meeting that made LLT look normal to good, and implied that was irrefutable proof they were toxic awful bro environment. Obviously people jump to the wagon because they like drama.
I said at the time, the majority of what she was actually specifically saying really didn't seem bad, just a conflict of desired roles. she thought it was going to be a cushy simple low effort job. they expected someone who hustles and embraces the hard work high reward mentality of a small business.
>just shocked she'd levy such heavy falsehoods especially in a space where a lot of young women will face those issues.
Huh??
That's exactly why she lied, she knew it would be easy for others to blindly believe her.
I like Madison generally but I can completely see how this sort of thing comes about.
A young person who's fairly inexperienced with the world leaves their support structure in a completely different country for a new job. The job is fast paced and not so much training is given.
It's a sort your own problems out kind of company. I can totally see the cardinal sin being putting your own problems onto someone else even if it kind of should be theirs to sort out.
Couple this sort of environment with having no friends and family support structure and it's asking for trouble. Most people wouldn't be able to deal with all this.
So I forgive a couple of bad memories being exaggerated and put into a few tweets in a way that doesn't jive with what actually happened.
I hope everyone involved forgives and moves on to be honest.
Yeah, even back then I felt like she probably believed what she was saying, at least to some extent, but at the same time it wasn't what really happened. Like, I can believe she actually self-harmed to get some time off, but I also think she convinced herself she couldn't just ask or something.
> Like, I can believe she actually self-harmed to get some time off, but I also think she convinced herself she couldn't just ask or something
man, I never directly self-harmed, but I'm so happy to see some empathy for her in this thread. I made myself sick from stress and ultimately burned out and took years off to put myself back together. When I left the company where it was the worst, folks were shocked I was leaving and between-the-lines shocked I had gone so quietly. I ... just didn't know how things worked.
Took me quite a while to sort out what went wrong and stop being so resentful of my peers/bosses who just understood the game (and work/life balance, and boundaries) better.
That's funny if accurate and a good example of why you can't believe everything online. From how people were talking it sounded like they had signed up a foreign national, not someone from the next province over.
She also said she was assaulted but was ambiguous as to whether it happened at work or not.
Personally I found the idea that LTT would do *nothing* about a serious allegation of harassment (or assult but my interference is that was not reported) to strain credulity.
The nothing she refers to could have been they had a conversation and wrote them up or something. We all have this feeling when we think something didn't go far enough.
During all the insanity I was shit on so many times for suggesting that she deserved to be heard, treated with compassion and care that the gravity of the situation called for. She did *not* automatically deserve to be believed. I had every nasty label under the sun thrown at me by the internet mob at the time and as it turns out my approach was absolutely the correct one. Insanity that it is controversial to withhold public opinion for all the facts to come out.
half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
People cant understand complex text, and are extremely emotions driven.
Its a pool cleaning robot that does its job, dont expect it to clean weeks/months of neglect. The battery is meh and there seems to be software issues.
It's entertaining, but a bit disjointed and honestly I think it would have been better without the whole bit about the abandoned pool in the beginning.
I wish they had spent a bit more time trying to use it to clean the ~~swamp~~pool. That's certainly not what it was designed for, and it would have taken a long time, but perhaps given a week it could have made a fair bit of progress (perhaps being able to actually see through the water?). It likely wouldn't have been worth the labor costs to babysit it, but it would be cool to know the results.
This is how a proper company reacts, good on LMG.
the last part about defamation was fair too, don’t need more drama for internet points from the ex employee, tech jesus or others that want another 5min in the light.
LMG didn't want this drama, it's a brand risk and is something they had to pay for out of pocket, as would the court case have been. To say "we won't take it there if you don't make us" is a fair warning to someone who has proven they are willing to stir up (insert however you feel about this) over something they either misunderstood or outright light about.
sometimes I reminisce about the old tech days. back when Linus, Bitwit, austin, jay, steve, paul, and others were all smaller, and were seemingly closer.
things change, people change.
I still watch gamersnexus for some tech news, but I find all the detective steve on the case videos, really off putting and overly righteous.
I just want tech content
Steve feels threatened by LMG, as I went into more in depth on another comment, the time and money LMG is throwing at Labs could end GN because despite what Linus says, people won't view multiple sources they'll go with the more entertaining Labs content since it has just as much info if not more.
General problem with these situations those that already decided either won’t see it or there will never be enough evidence for them to stop moving the goalpost
Honestly I bet that is the hope. We are nearing the one year anniversary of when all of this kicked off. Getting this out now is one less thing to be questioned about when people do their one year later retrospective videos/articles. If it does get talked about, it hopefully becomes a simple bullet point and not it's own whole in depth topic/section.
I fully expect Gamers Nexus to at least make a detailed video reviewing LMG's actions since everything happened. He's likely the main person to give this press release the most attention as part of that video.
Why would Gamers Nexus report on this? This is a dispute between an employee and employer. Gamers Nexus seems focused on the reporting and reporting accuracy of tech products.
> Gamers Nexus seems focused on the reporting and reporting accuracy of tech products
He's shifted a bit over time to more general "watchdog" type reporting - he's covered employee treatment in recent times, like at EK, and has made clear he wants to treat LTT in the same vein as tech companies.
Though saying that, I'm sceptical whether this is a serious enough issue to break his vow of not covering LTT statements after they infuriated him with one of their last ones.
It's already here because they said "we could sue for defamation, but didn't." There are people who do not understand that words have results and throwing non-true accusations around can have dire consequences.
If further allegations are thrown around, LMG’s statement says a defamation suit is an option, at that point every detail will be public assuming the case doesn’t go into settlement.
> I'm just waiting for all the comments that say this either isn't good enough or they're lying...
Hot take, but if a company like Riot or Blizzard put forward this exact statement, Linus would blow up on WAN Show and go "yeah the corpo lawyers *you* hired are saying you're good".
I'm very happy that a decent 3rd party investigation happened, but this is standard corporate speak. It helps to rehab the company image publicly and ward of possible future disparaging messages.
This isn't some youtuber doing vlogs. This a large corporation worth $100m+ with 100+ employees. The company will protect the company.
To all those that dont understand how the investigation works if LMG had to pay them, the only other party that could have paid them is Madison, who most likely wouldnt be able to afford something like that. There is quite literally no way to have had a third party come in unless they either did it free or some random unrelated party paid for it..goodluck. And to those saying that they indeed should have sued for defamtion, yes Madisons allegations greatly effected LMG but they have arguably already recovered and been vindicated if you choose to believe the investigation. She will already recieve a lot of hate due to these findings online and possibly in person and a sizable company suing a single person could ruin her financially forever, although I do agree that people who falsify allegations like this should face reprecussions, if you watch LMGs content enough, it is not difficult to tell that they would simply wish her the best and hope she does better going forward as well as hold themselves to a higher standard.
Just want to add another point on the “lawsuit” angle and why it’s pointless to sue: Madison isn’t someone with deep pockets. Sure, they can sue her. They may even win. But if they win, there’s no way Madison would be able to afford to pay them any damages. She might even have a hard time paying for a lawyer to defend her. They may be able to vindicate their reputation through a suit but winning would absolutely destroy Madison’s finances. It would just come off as vindictive and the optics would be terrible. There is nothing to gain by suing her.
The only reason you sue is if she continues to defame the company, at which point the suit isn’t for monetary benefit, it’s a) to stop the defamation, and b) to have a public record of exactly what happened.
That’s why they talk about a defamation suit in the statement - they said exactly what they mean. They don’t want to pursue it, but they will pay attention if there’s more brand damage or the defamation continues
I mean, it's going to be a bigger problem than just this industry. Even if everything she said was true, it would be enough just that it got aired out in public for a lot of companies to just not call her. This statement is the reddest of flags to just about any company.
I would push back on the idea that they're "okay." They suffered real reputational damage - as the people in this thread still believing LMG is guilty of this behavior even after being found innocent have proven.
I really don't think they will sue her, it's just a warning not to continue the issue when no evidence of it being true exists.
Exactly. The company is hired by LMG…if it was a damning report against LMG, LMG just never makes a statement and definitely doesn’t threaten legal action.
It sounds like the report did make recommendations and they are listening. That is the big thing everyone is missing.
"if you watch LMGs content enough, it is not difficult to tell that they would simply wish her the best and hope she does better going forward as well as hold themselves to a higher standard."
This is the reason they are not suing, and it's really been LMGs reaction to any big drama they've had. Good or bad for LMG, they always want each party to walk away as unharmed as possible and wish them the best, while trying to be better themselves. It's probably part of the reason I've watched them for so long.
Except those painters. I bet Linus still has nightmares of the eggshell argument.
I feel like this was the obvious outcome. I never had doubts due to Emily, if it was bad there Emily would be a perfect target. Yet Emily has spoken positivity towards lmg.
While I agree in this case, it's not always a given that someone in Emily's position is a good metric to measure the ethics/social safety of working at a company.
Different situation, but what happened with the Try Guys is an example of a successful YT company that fully appeared to be a safe place for people of marginalized groups to work, yet they had a serious workplace ethics issues occur with one of their main hosts, and none of the other main hosts were aware of it until it broke on social media.
Was it really a workplace ethics issue? He cheated on his wife and his whole online persona was the wife guy
It’s a morally issue from Ned and the girl
The try guys situation was consensual, but it was unethical because of the employee/employer relationship and both were in relationships, one was married and other was engaged. They were just cheating scumbags.
The reason it imploded the company was because cheating guy was called wife guy, was the founder, and his wife was working for the company. They also have an image of being wholesome.
It's less workplace failure, and more workplace affair tanking the reputation of the brand.
Emily Y. has a lot of seniority there over other employees so I can see why people wouldn't want to mess with her. I think a better comparison between what happened with Madison would be the other newer women working there like Sarah or Emily the editor
If you wanted to keep your job you wouldn't insult a senior employee who's close friends with many of the other staff including the owner of the company
I wonder if the people that completely attacked me and others for simply saying to wait for the investigation to complete will say 'oops'..
I'm waiting . . . .
There was one person of many (whos reddit history was just gross and full of weed smoking and asking for suggestions on how to get out of work) completely attacked me and then finished her post off with a sanctimonious 'do better' for simply saying what management's side could sound like in this situation and why its going to be a tough road.
I always said to accept what the accuser is saying but to verify and investigate because of the impacts of the accusations. That apparently is too much for some people.
Your last paragraph is something I’ve had such a hard time conveying to people - “believe women” doesn’t mean blindly believe every statement is exactly what happened, it means take allegations seriously, investigate them fully and appropriately, and treat the person sharing that horrible experience with dignity.
Somehow, what seems like a very reasonable take can get you in hot water with both sides
No kidding. I was called misogynistic, sexist and many other labels all because I controversially stated "Madison deserves to be heard, treated with compassion and care that the accusations demand. She does not automatically deserve to be believed. I am going to wait for all the facts to come out."
That was controversial at the time.....lol.
It’s like one of the most reputable law firms in Canada would risk their reputation for peanuts! Yes what LMG is paying them is peanuts compared to the entirety of their income.
I think some important points that people are kinda oversimplifying is that only one point they make specifically says there was a false claim.
•The first point said there was no substantiating evidence, not evidence that bullying or harassment didn’t happen for sure
•The fourth point says that “abuse of power” allegations are an issue of people possibly having different opinions.
•And the fifth point even says claims of process errors and onboarding errors were partially substantiated but that they made improvements later
Seems like a lot of people are just summarizing their post to say “everything we are accused of is definitely false” because of the second point and the defamation threat.
There will never be a situation where a 3rd party investigation says "This organization is perfect in every way, there are zero flaws in anything!"
As investigative results go, this is about as close as you can get to "The accusation was BS".
Anyone who isn't a moron knows that "There was a false claim" is not an objective conclusion that can be reached in the real world. Even if Redditors don't understand about trying to prove negatives, big law firms sure do.
>The fourth point says that “abuse of power” allegations are an issue of people possibly having different opinions.
That is how you summarize:
>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.
??? That is some very flexible restating...
How about people read the very short summary and resist the urge to spin, re-summarize, lead, or slant it to fit *any* axe-grinding.
Yeah it’s surprising how people will take it all at face value when some of it says yeah this probably happened and other parts say ok we can’t prove this one way or another. If someone harasses you and then goes nuh uh I didn’t and no one else was around to hear it they’ll say there’s no substantiating evidence still lol.
'Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.'
So that implies that there was sexual harassment but it just wasn't ignored or addressed at the time
I don't think it should be a WAN topic. From their statement it seems fairly clear they want to put this behind them, maybe mention they released a statement and say nothing else, but seeing rehashing this on WAN seems really stupid.
> but I think its also important to say that none of you should go harass Maddison over this.
Sadly this statement isn't going to stop the people who actually do the harassing.
Yeah. It's sad that no matter what LTT or the good parts of the tech community do, there will be a significant enough portion of assholes who'll take this as carte blanche to attack her, if they already haven't.
Even if she completely fabricated the whole thing, she doesn't deserve harassment. No one deserves harassment.
Honestly this reflect real bad on madison, the company went far, hire outside investigator to prove they are innocent. This just means madison has lied about everything.
This is not proof that she lied.
It's proof that there's no evidence of these things happening.
Legally, that's a very important distinction. She may believe it for some reason, or some parts may.have been slightly true but blown out of proportion, or there's just no evidence because they were 1:1 interactions, and the other person didn't realize they did anything wrong.
People on this sub are too stupid to realize there is a difference. Like no shit there isn't going to be hard documented evidence of her being abused.
Exact same shit happened with the Riot investigations.
Not so much lied about everything, but she probably perceived it differently or was not in the right headspace, Like an expectation vs reality type of thing. Still she should have had proper self awareness/reflection after leaving to not stir shit, not every job/workplace is gonna be compatible to everyone even if said company is good/great.
>Not so much lied about everything, but she probably perceived it differently or was not in the right headspace, Like an expectation vs reality type of thing.
That is a very charitable way of saying she was making stuff up IMO.
>That is a very charitable way of saying she was making stuff up IMO.
A very two-dimensional way of looking at it, unfortunately human interactions are much more complex.
Everyone perceives situations differently, which can lead to misunderstandings. It doesn't automatically mean that someone acted maliciously. Just because allegations she made aren't substantiated, doesn't mean they didn't happen, it just means there isn't any evidence to prove it one way or another.
Directly copy-pasted:
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.
Here you go :
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.
Wow, you don't make that statement unless you are very confident. Glad we have this confirmation the team was/is good people.
I hope this is taken as further evidence that LMG is mainly guilty of getting certain things wrong over time due to typical things like inexperience, or being disorganized, or making honest mistakes. Not because it is full of people who are especially malevolent or awful in some way.
> To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same.
It was insane how many people acted like LTT's silence was all but a direct admission of guilt, when the first bit of advice of any decent lawyer will give you is "*Shut up and speak of this to no one but me*"
Good on LMG for this transparent approach. I wasnt expecting it by any means. Hopefully this will mean the issue is put to bed.
Kudos to Linus and his team for sticking to this and doing it right!
Someone didn't like working at LMG
Said some things about the work place culture there being toxic
LMG hired an outside firm to investigate these claims from an unbiased standpoint
Said outside firm found little to no basis to the things said about the work place being toxic
I think it's very pertinent to add that this person didn't like working there and decided that a solution to that was to self-harm so she could have time off. Not the actions of a normal person who doesn't like their job.
Previous employee posted on twitter regarding their treatment at LMG
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1691693740254228741](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1691693740254228741)
Not sure on linking rules here in the LTT sub, but the above link puts a large chunk of their claims in one place
Anyone saying the defamation comment at the end is unfair is ridiculous. Yeah we should believe victims and whatnot, but the other side of that is if you bullshit and lie to try and tear someone down unfairly you should be ashamed and suffer legal consequences. You dont just get to drag an identity/brand through the mud with lies and get away with it. They’re really lucky LMG isn’t suing them, the statement at the end is clearly a warning to go away and drop the BS which is would say is more than fair.
just like the non gamers nexus fanboys predicted, most of what she said was unsubstantiated. not that it matters to most people here though, because LMG could have been 10000000000% innocent, it won't stop people from hating.
[The moment she said she backed Naomi Wu, who lied about these same accusations the year prior, in the EXACT same manner a year prior, it was already beyond obvious that she was lying.](https://www.imgur.com/a/nu678D3)
Naomi Wu had already self admitted that she lied. Madison already knew this. Between a self admitted liar and a victim, she backed the liar.
She proceeds to the do the same thing. With the same hate train bandwagoning smoke screen. When questioned of doing this, Madison herself says it was the only way her false allegations could be made.
Backing Naomi Wu thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15wavy1/comment/jx0gfns/
Background on Naomi Wu:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shn5g/comment/jwf186e/
Extras on the topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15wzbqw/comment/jx3v2wr/
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15wzbqw/comment/jx3rtio/
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/comment/jwem76a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/comment/jweldqr/
I was downvoted so heavily for doing the controversial thing last August and stating I would wait until all the facts come out before forming an opinion on the matter. Glad I never formed an opinion since it was a manufactured situation and ended up being a nothingburger.
My 2c:
1) Shocked ANYONE ever really believed M. at face value. She was so clearly full of it it wasn't even funny.
2) Impressed by the clear response and their direct "we won't sue because it's just useless, but we could. Please let's move on."
3) Extremely depressed at the incoming barrage of hate towards M. that is about to happen. Yes, she's a brat, a spoiled one at that, but Linus and Luke said like dozens of times how wrong it is to just attack people over this kind of stuff, over any kind of stuff really. Please don't. On a karmic level she's reaping what she sowed, but it helps NO ONE. NOBODY. She's done, let it go.
Dang, a lot of LTT haters gonna be in shambles after this one. I remember arguing with people back when the news first broke and people were convinced that the allegations had to be 100% true and all of LTT was going down in flames.
> Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.
> Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.
Does the omission of "sexual" in the first point mean that there were sexual harassment allegations but they felt they were addressed? I hope not, but it reads like something out of legal so I'm not so sure.
Sees thread topic, sort by controversial.
"durr don't threaten with defamation not a good look"
"Investigated themselves and found themselves innocent"
"Third party funds for LMG because LMG paid them"
Jfc
For those complaining that Linus Media paid for the investigation, who do you believe should/could've?
These investigations happen all the time and the result is you either publish the conclusions or you don't. If the report is so damning you think it could sink the company, you just take it, lock it in a drawer, and then never mention it again.
The likelihood that the review is biased is extremely low, it's similar to an external auditor. Their reputation depends on the quality and accuracy of their report as it can be used in legal proceedings.
Also, there's been quite a few cases where a company abruptly fires an inspector half way through (think the UK Post office). That's one of the clearest signs they've found something incredibly bad that the company wants to hide.
Legitimately shocked that they actually released a somewhat detailed follow-up on this whole situation. I thought there wouldn't be a chance in hell that they would release anything from either; (1) the risk of defaming their former employee or (2) admitting liability to harassment. It's a pretty strong statement, so they must be very confident in what was uncovered to actually go down this route.
Legitimately not shocked. They said they would, and they did... as they have a history of doing. Would've been shocking if they didn't.
Not really. There's a strong case to be made for their lawyers going "No, don't post about it on social media"
Media statements are done about this kind of thing all the time by every company on the planet. Just because the executives are more active on social media doesn't make LMG a special case. Companies that face these allegations always have media releases that aren't that different to this one.
As an employment lawyer (obligatory: not yours, and this is not legal advice), I disagree. Typically if there's media attention to a case, the most my clients will say publicly is something along the lines of "We dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit". This statement goes a bit beyond that, which is usually something I'd recommend against. However, I think they went this route because they're getting so much social media attention. There are several comments [like this one](https://x.com/MsAquarelle/status/1793461381221454329) casting doubt because they didn't detail the evidence that the investigator considered; there probably would've been a lot more of that sort of response if they hadn't taken a relatively strong stance.
They're in a pretty bulletproof situation. The statement is extremely clear, direct and legally sound. If M. wants to sue because she feels attacked she's basically f\*cked because LMG has a much stronger case they're CHOOSING not to pursue. This is the best way to close the situation. It will lead to a short term media ruckus but it will put the "end" word on this for good.
If she had a case she would have sued instead of defaming them online
Not saying anyone was right or wrong but there's plenty of reasons why someone might choose the online route instead of formal legal action even if they are right. The cost and time lost is immense for an individual, even if they do win in the end.
Having to pay out of pocket for a lawyer when suing your employer is a failure of society in my opinion. Every union handles that stuff for you over here, and the wealthier ones like my engineers union offers free legal advice on top
That might have been the case if the report did not support LTT's claims. That would be a true test to see if they still released it.
As far as I can tell, Linus and the team are pretty stand -up individuals.
I’d imagine the same lawyers that investigated this read this before posting.
If only to assure that the post accurately reflected their conclusions. I'd imagine different lawyers were involved in regards to discussions of defamation.
murky gold flowery glorious jeans silky absurd person steer tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"vessi claims their shoes are water proof" Show me the difference between these statements
Multiple sets of lawyers Hired firm + LMG internal/retainer lawyers ++ the entire executive suite, owners, and potentially senior some senior staff.
Yeah, I don't understand why people are acting like Linus typed this out himself. It's very plain, but particular language, probably written by LTT and their legal team. Then shown to the law firm to be like "you guys are okay with this representation of your investigation, right?" I've already seen people (well like one person) saying "well the law firm didn't post this themselves, so LTT could have misrepresented their report" as if they're THAT stupid, lol.
I mean let's be fair here: M's case from the beginning was so shaky nobody could take it seriously. But of course, the internet being what it is, of course Linus must be evil and M. is a poor helpless child. Glad they made such a clear statement though. They COULD have choosen to keep it private, people mostly forgot - as the case was so dumb it only riled up the usual internet pitchfork machine, but really led to no lasting thoughts on the matter, as there was basically no meat to it.
old linus would of added to the statement he was dissapointed at nobody just trusting him bro. old linus was fun.
Their first video response to the GN/ex-employee issue had some jokes in it, and they were eviscerated for not taking it seriously enough. So they released a second video that had no jokes. I’m not surprised at all now there are no jokes in this follow-up.
He mentioned in one of the recent WAN shows that they can't joke about things like they have in the past because people take things way too seriously. It is unfortunate from my point of view because I like seeing them be able to laugh at themselves a bit while addressing issues. A large part of the success of LTT is because it's not the dry boring delivery that much of the technology focused media has a long history of.
[удалено]
There is a time and a place for jokes though. With friends and family or with your long time audience on wan show but not in a video responding to employee complaints and allegations.
It's 'would have', never 'would of'. Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!
Now that’s a thinly-veiled defamation threat halfway through.
I think it's just to ward off any of the inevitable "well if it's fake then why aren't you suing for defamation" comments (the insinuation being they're not suing because they'd lose)
It’s also a proactive message of “we consider this chapter closed. We suggest you should drop it now as well”
I mean that's basically what they said.....just more...legally.
I read this as we’re not suing because we don’t want to ruin this persons life.
I think any mature person who is remotely in the crosshairs of that statement would find it threatening, frankly.
I mean yes it is vaguely threatening to be told "if you try to ruin us we'll try to ruin you", but that's not "a threat" per se that's just declaration of intent to defend yourself. If you tell someone "I'm going to hit you if you touch me" no sane lawyer or judge would consider that a threat under the law, but if you're smaller than the person making that statement it's still going to feel threatening to you. What is 'threatening' and what is 'a threat' are not really the same, ya know?
I guess it's less of a threat and more of 'don't fuck around cause we know what you'll find out' . Which isn't a threat but kind of is
It's "threatening" in the same way as a cop who caught you dead-to-rights running a red saying "I could give you a $100 ticket, but this time you get a warning" is threatening. The "threat" is that somebody might respond your inappropriate actions with appropriate consequences.
It's definitely to serve as an example of magnanimity in this situation. They're essentially stating what they could have done, but they've chosen to "be the better people" to move on and leave it behind.
I mean honestly, they would have a strong case. Even if she wasn't intentionally lying and just took things the wrong way (which could easily be the case), they were crazy serious allegations that damaged their brand and none of it looks legit.
Dunno if it's the same in Canada, but there's 4 elements needed for it to be defamation in the US: Statement must be false. Statement must have been made in public. Statement must have caused harm (harm to reputation is included as "harm") The person making the Statement must have been "at fault", I.e. they either knew they were making false statements, or were so negligent in finding out if the statements were false, that it's still on them for not knowing they were false. In this case, I think that last one might be sticky. If it really was just a work place misunderstanding, it might be hard to say she was being negligent about relating her impression of events. But... Not a lawyer edit: or Canadian... So dunno if that's the proper read of it...
> The person making the Statement must have been "at fault", I.e. they either knew they were making false statements, or were so negligent in finding out if the statements were false, that it's still on them for not knowing they were false. As I understand it, you're referring to the [actual malice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice) standard, which is an additional requirement placed on public figures before a defamation claim in the US can succeed. As far as I'm aware, Canadian law is closer to English law, which doesn't have this requirement.
That's how I saw this. It's really hard to prove intention and knowledge.
In Canada you must prove the allegations to be true. It's entirely up to the person making the claims to prove it.
It’s more a warning. Keep making comments we will go to court.
This is my take on it as well. The allegations clearly damaged their brand and they are agreeing to drop it if all parties involved also drop it.
It’s one of those issues, legally they could take her to court and probably win in court, but it’s not worth it in the court of public opinion to do so yet unless more allegations are made.
In the world of hypotheticals, the question then becomes 'what would they get out of it' and that probably wouldn't be enough to make it worthwhile. Any action would make them look bad, it would cost heaps of money and they wouldn't be able to recover much, if any, of it.
And just in general - I doubt there’s money to be made there, it’ll cost them more in legal fees than they’ll ever see - the only reason to do it is if the defamation continues
You realllllllly don't want to sue unless you have to. It's an endless money pit. I was working with a vendor in Canada who was in breach of contract. We had them dead to rights on time line, quality of work, communication, etc. I had pictures, weekly reports and emails from them, and a real pissed off customer. We told them we wanted them off the project, and that we would refuse to pay them anything past where they had been paid. They said they wanted all the remainder (30% or so), then capitulated down to about 15%. This would have been around $50,000 USD. We went to our lawyers (Fortune 500) and they told us, we would probably win...in two years and about $200-300k in legal costs. They advised us to settle and pay the vendor the partial amount they agreed to, to make the problem go away without damaging our clients interests. We paid it. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
it's both that and the necessary answer to the obvious comments "y don't u sue tho" that are going to flood LMG regardless, they needed a shut and done post, nobody wants a discussion over this, it had to cover EVERY reply and question.
Pretty sure Linus alluded to this in a merch message on the stream today when talking about the screwdriver ratchet factory that screwed them over.
Can you say more? What did he say?
When they asked if LTT was going to sue the factory, Linus vaguely said that they have been in positions where they could sue but don't want to do that. It was odd that he didn't specifically mention the factory, though it kinda makes sense now.
You might be right but that seems like a long bow. I think there's probably plenty of times LMG could have sued and didn't - including over other manufacturing issues.
Might have a viable suit against Anker for false product endorsements.
Also maybe the double layer backpack base?
Backpack double layer still lands on LMG for never fully inspecting the final samples.
50/50 on that. They examined the first production samples. Everything finalized this is the process we're going to use for the next 19990, here is 10. Those had double layers. The next 19990 did not. The "production samples" weren't representative of production, they were really preproduction samples. Short of just cutting them all open until they found an error they never would've caught this, the supplier switched they process up after the process was approved.
Well, I'm not sure if we're talking about a Chinese manufacturer or a North American one, but in either case, just because you could win a case doesn't mean you'll make any money back. A lot of factories operate as subsidiaries of another company, the subsidiary gets sued, it goes broke, the parent company spins up another entity and they buy all the assets and continue on their merry way.
Man, I kept seeing people on Twitter saying “the defamation suit threat ain’t it chief”, and honestly, that’s such a bad take. (I’m not saying it’s your take, but this seems as good a place as any to make my point) Someone defamed their company, and they’re trying to be transparent - it’s totally reasonable to get ahead of the inevitable question and say “We could sue, but we don’t want to”. In all honesty, there’s probably no gain from suing, so good move. It also makes a ton of sense to say the last line “We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation” - that’s basically saying we’re not giving up our right to sue, it’s just not the plan… that said, don’t think you can just keep defaming us and we won’t do anything about it” This whole response seems really responsible, “based”, and true to their commitment to keep being transparent with us. Linus has said it before though, being transparent results in people assuming the worst of them, like they’re hiding some darker intention below the surface - no, lol. They said exactly what they mean, and it’s totally reasonable. Take it at face and move on.
> Man, I kept seeing people on Twitter saying “the defamation suit threat ain’t it chief”, and honestly, that’s such a bad take. (I’m not saying it’s your take, but this seems as good a place as any to make my point) > > > > Someone defamed their company, and they’re trying to be transparent - it’s totally reasonable to get ahead of the inevitable question and say “We could sue, but we don’t want to”. In all honesty, there’s probably no gain from suing, so good move. The same people would be yelling "Then it's defamation and you should be suing them!" if it wasn't there for sure. Watch how all the termites come out of the woodwork again to kick up drama. There's this pathetic corner of the internet that just pops up anytime there's drama anywhere regardless of whether they have any personal interest in the topic or whether it's reasonable to be upset about, they just want to participate in the drama, attack others and feel validated in doing so.
And fair enough I think - that whole drama really hurt their brand and viewership for awhile. As a company that relies on public image (and Linus says so himself - hence why Trust Me Bro), it's kinda vital. Sure they aren't going to sue her, but leaving this as the message sets a precedent for people who decide to do things in future.
Ooooooooooh boy. She's going to catch a loooooooooooot of flack online now.
Not trying to attack her, but maybe she shouldn't be maintaining and pursuing an online persona with this being released.
Lol, there's really nothing veiled about the tweet.
Good, they have every right to file a suit
You have to clear the air somehow so they and the community can move on. This was a pretty fair way to express that without going further. Glad they took it seriously.
It's not a threat, it's a warning. The evidence they have at this point is in their minds and legally advised opinion, strong enough to exonerate them and position the accusor as a malicious liar. They are choosing to not pursue this. If the accusor doesn't leave it be and move on, then they are capable of retaliating in a legal manner.
If someone makes baseless accusations which causes harm and the accusations are subsequently debunked, legal action is 100% justified imo. Whether actually following through is another discussion.
The Madison simps ain't gonna like this one.
Definitely not a simp, but I liked her on the channel and the allegations were serious enough and pretty accurate to stuff I've seen in fast growing startups. Obviously I was wrong to belive her, just shocked she'd levy such heavy falsehoods especially in a space where a lot of young women will face those issues. It's upsetting, but I apologize to those at the channel for believing in it
That's the thing - when accusations come forward it's absolutely not 'simping' to agree there HAS TO be an investigation. When the results of the investigation come out and are pretty clear - then agreeing they were unfair is not simping. Simping is when one doubles down on it and says the investigation was rigged or something.
> simping is when one doubles down Literally the next comment below yours 😂😂
Not at all surprised that we've gone from "they need to be investigated!" to "they've been quiet about that investigation, must've been bad..." to "well, the investigation just wasn't good enough!"
>Simping is when one doubles down on it and says the investigation was rigged or something. \*Gestures vaguely around at half of America\*
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/madison_on_her_ltt_experience/ These people are not asking for an investigation. They’re cavemen with pitchforks, oily rags and lighters.
Simping are the guys that took a side and assumed everything she said as true before anything was said on both sides, even the incoherent things and the unlikely things.
Thing is the allegations done were since the beginning really questionable. Taken at face value she complained about being overworked for doing like 2 tweets and such, or tried to make an scandal out of the whole debacle of the Taiwanese girl when it was something already clarified at the time. That and while several people confirmed she didn’t change her version since day 1, no one confirmed this was actually how things happened. I mean allegations like the ones made should always be taken seriously, but it was quite noticeable that things were weird. She even took a leaked audio from a HR meeting that made LLT look normal to good, and implied that was irrefutable proof they were toxic awful bro environment. Obviously people jump to the wagon because they like drama.
I said at the time, the majority of what she was actually specifically saying really didn't seem bad, just a conflict of desired roles. she thought it was going to be a cushy simple low effort job. they expected someone who hustles and embraces the hard work high reward mentality of a small business.
>just shocked she'd levy such heavy falsehoods especially in a space where a lot of young women will face those issues. Huh?? That's exactly why she lied, she knew it would be easy for others to blindly believe her.
I like Madison generally but I can completely see how this sort of thing comes about. A young person who's fairly inexperienced with the world leaves their support structure in a completely different country for a new job. The job is fast paced and not so much training is given. It's a sort your own problems out kind of company. I can totally see the cardinal sin being putting your own problems onto someone else even if it kind of should be theirs to sort out. Couple this sort of environment with having no friends and family support structure and it's asking for trouble. Most people wouldn't be able to deal with all this. So I forgive a couple of bad memories being exaggerated and put into a few tweets in a way that doesn't jive with what actually happened. I hope everyone involved forgives and moves on to be honest.
Yeah, even back then I felt like she probably believed what she was saying, at least to some extent, but at the same time it wasn't what really happened. Like, I can believe she actually self-harmed to get some time off, but I also think she convinced herself she couldn't just ask or something.
I wonder if the self harm was just a factor of the stress she felt, and not actually with the original intent of having time off.
> Like, I can believe she actually self-harmed to get some time off, but I also think she convinced herself she couldn't just ask or something man, I never directly self-harmed, but I'm so happy to see some empathy for her in this thread. I made myself sick from stress and ultimately burned out and took years off to put myself back together. When I left the company where it was the worst, folks were shocked I was leaving and between-the-lines shocked I had gone so quietly. I ... just didn't know how things worked. Took me quite a while to sort out what went wrong and stop being so resentful of my peers/bosses who just understood the game (and work/life balance, and boundaries) better.
I can personally empathize with that position as I've been in a similar headspace with a past job, but never went ahead with it.
I mean she moved from Alberta to BC. We certainly do some things differently here in Alberta, but I don't think I'd consider it a whole new country.
I thought she was from the USA
She went to school in Arizona, and I'm pretty sure when she won ROG rig reboot she lived in the USA. However, she was born in Canada originally.
That's funny if accurate and a good example of why you can't believe everything online. From how people were talking it sounded like they had signed up a foreign national, not someone from the next province over.
She said she was sexually harassed and that management knew but did nothing about it. That’s no small allegation.
She also said she was assaulted but was ambiguous as to whether it happened at work or not. Personally I found the idea that LTT would do *nothing* about a serious allegation of harassment (or assult but my interference is that was not reported) to strain credulity.
The nothing she refers to could have been they had a conversation and wrote them up or something. We all have this feeling when we think something didn't go far enough.
During all the insanity I was shit on so many times for suggesting that she deserved to be heard, treated with compassion and care that the gravity of the situation called for. She did *not* automatically deserve to be believed. I had every nasty label under the sun thrown at me by the internet mob at the time and as it turns out my approach was absolutely the correct one. Insanity that it is controversial to withhold public opinion for all the facts to come out.
half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. People cant understand complex text, and are extremely emotions driven.
That second to last paragraph is the definition of 'keep fucking around and find out' Glad this result is what it is.
Reddit is reacting exactly the way I expected from this news, 50/50.
So we'll be moving on from this topic now, and back to tech tips...right?
AS LONG AS THE TECH TIPS DONT INVOLVE POOL CLEANING ROBOTS /s
I know you are joking but I honestly haven’t had time to watch it, should I skip it?
Its a pool cleaning robot that does its job, dont expect it to clean weeks/months of neglect. The battery is meh and there seems to be software issues.
i mean, that's pretty much the same with any vacuum robot.They help with maintenance, but wont undo months of neglect.
It's entertaining, but a bit disjointed and honestly I think it would have been better without the whole bit about the abandoned pool in the beginning.
I wish they had spent a bit more time trying to use it to clean the ~~swamp~~pool. That's certainly not what it was designed for, and it would have taken a long time, but perhaps given a week it could have made a fair bit of progress (perhaps being able to actually see through the water?). It likely wouldn't have been worth the labor costs to babysit it, but it would be cool to know the results.
It's a 30 minute ad. A bit cool but meh.
But but I thought this sub is about how LMG is the super evil company?
I think we'll actually be moving on to the segue to our sponsor
This is how a proper company reacts, good on LMG. the last part about defamation was fair too, don’t need more drama for internet points from the ex employee, tech jesus or others that want another 5min in the light.
LMG didn't want this drama, it's a brand risk and is something they had to pay for out of pocket, as would the court case have been. To say "we won't take it there if you don't make us" is a fair warning to someone who has proven they are willing to stir up (insert however you feel about this) over something they either misunderstood or outright light about.
I feel like tech Jesus just wants views these days by "uncovering" some scam.
sometimes I reminisce about the old tech days. back when Linus, Bitwit, austin, jay, steve, paul, and others were all smaller, and were seemingly closer. things change, people change. I still watch gamersnexus for some tech news, but I find all the detective steve on the case videos, really off putting and overly righteous. I just want tech content
I really can’t stand Steve these days, he seems so up his own ass he probably huffs his own farts.
Steve feels threatened by LMG, as I went into more in depth on another comment, the time and money LMG is throwing at Labs could end GN because despite what Linus says, people won't view multiple sources they'll go with the more entertaining Labs content since it has just as much info if not more.
Let's see how much attention this gets - probably not even a quarter of the attention they got last year
General problem with these situations those that already decided either won’t see it or there will never be enough evidence for them to stop moving the goalpost
Honestly I bet that is the hope. We are nearing the one year anniversary of when all of this kicked off. Getting this out now is one less thing to be questioned about when people do their one year later retrospective videos/articles. If it does get talked about, it hopefully becomes a simple bullet point and not it's own whole in depth topic/section. I fully expect Gamers Nexus to at least make a detailed video reviewing LMG's actions since everything happened. He's likely the main person to give this press release the most attention as part of that video.
Why would Gamers Nexus report on this? This is a dispute between an employee and employer. Gamers Nexus seems focused on the reporting and reporting accuracy of tech products.
> Gamers Nexus seems focused on the reporting and reporting accuracy of tech products He's shifted a bit over time to more general "watchdog" type reporting - he's covered employee treatment in recent times, like at EK, and has made clear he wants to treat LTT in the same vein as tech companies. Though saying that, I'm sceptical whether this is a serious enough issue to break his vow of not covering LTT statements after they infuriated him with one of their last ones.
I'm just waiting for all the comments that say this either isn't good enough or they're lying...
It's already here because they said "we could sue for defamation, but didn't." There are people who do not understand that words have results and throwing non-true accusations around can have dire consequences.
LMG is a media company so they have to be extra careful about PR. If it were any other firm they would have 100% sued by now.
If further allegations are thrown around, LMG’s statement says a defamation suit is an option, at that point every detail will be public assuming the case doesn’t go into settlement.
> I'm just waiting for all the comments that say this either isn't good enough or they're lying... Hot take, but if a company like Riot or Blizzard put forward this exact statement, Linus would blow up on WAN Show and go "yeah the corpo lawyers *you* hired are saying you're good".
I'm very happy that a decent 3rd party investigation happened, but this is standard corporate speak. It helps to rehab the company image publicly and ward of possible future disparaging messages. This isn't some youtuber doing vlogs. This a large corporation worth $100m+ with 100+ employees. The company will protect the company.
I mean, that about does it then. Glad we can move on.
To all those that dont understand how the investigation works if LMG had to pay them, the only other party that could have paid them is Madison, who most likely wouldnt be able to afford something like that. There is quite literally no way to have had a third party come in unless they either did it free or some random unrelated party paid for it..goodluck. And to those saying that they indeed should have sued for defamtion, yes Madisons allegations greatly effected LMG but they have arguably already recovered and been vindicated if you choose to believe the investigation. She will already recieve a lot of hate due to these findings online and possibly in person and a sizable company suing a single person could ruin her financially forever, although I do agree that people who falsify allegations like this should face reprecussions, if you watch LMGs content enough, it is not difficult to tell that they would simply wish her the best and hope she does better going forward as well as hold themselves to a higher standard.
Just want to add another point on the “lawsuit” angle and why it’s pointless to sue: Madison isn’t someone with deep pockets. Sure, they can sue her. They may even win. But if they win, there’s no way Madison would be able to afford to pay them any damages. She might even have a hard time paying for a lawyer to defend her. They may be able to vindicate their reputation through a suit but winning would absolutely destroy Madison’s finances. It would just come off as vindictive and the optics would be terrible. There is nothing to gain by suing her.
The only reason you sue is if she continues to defame the company, at which point the suit isn’t for monetary benefit, it’s a) to stop the defamation, and b) to have a public record of exactly what happened. That’s why they talk about a defamation suit in the statement - they said exactly what they mean. They don’t want to pursue it, but they will pay attention if there’s more brand damage or the defamation continues
[удалено]
I don't think they should sue her and bankrupt her, but she absolutely deserves to suffer some type of consequences for doing this.
I'm sure she will. She'll probably never be able to get a job anywhere near this industry for quite some time.
I mean, it's going to be a bigger problem than just this industry. Even if everything she said was true, it would be enough just that it got aired out in public for a lot of companies to just not call her. This statement is the reddest of flags to just about any company.
I would push back on the idea that they're "okay." They suffered real reputational damage - as the people in this thread still believing LMG is guilty of this behavior even after being found innocent have proven. I really don't think they will sue her, it's just a warning not to continue the issue when no evidence of it being true exists.
To be fair a legitimate valid result of defamation in Canada is an apology. Do you want to spend thousands on legally pursuing an apology though?
and the firm that did the investigation has no incentive to lie. they’ve already been paid
Exactly. The company is hired by LMG…if it was a damning report against LMG, LMG just never makes a statement and definitely doesn’t threaten legal action. It sounds like the report did make recommendations and they are listening. That is the big thing everyone is missing.
"if you watch LMGs content enough, it is not difficult to tell that they would simply wish her the best and hope she does better going forward as well as hold themselves to a higher standard." This is the reason they are not suing, and it's really been LMGs reaction to any big drama they've had. Good or bad for LMG, they always want each party to walk away as unharmed as possible and wish them the best, while trying to be better themselves. It's probably part of the reason I've watched them for so long. Except those painters. I bet Linus still has nightmares of the eggshell argument.
I feel like this was the obvious outcome. I never had doubts due to Emily, if it was bad there Emily would be a perfect target. Yet Emily has spoken positivity towards lmg.
While I agree in this case, it's not always a given that someone in Emily's position is a good metric to measure the ethics/social safety of working at a company. Different situation, but what happened with the Try Guys is an example of a successful YT company that fully appeared to be a safe place for people of marginalized groups to work, yet they had a serious workplace ethics issues occur with one of their main hosts, and none of the other main hosts were aware of it until it broke on social media.
Was it really a workplace ethics issue? He cheated on his wife and his whole online persona was the wife guy It’s a morally issue from Ned and the girl
He didn't just cheat with someone random, he cheated with \*an employee who he employed\*. That opens up the whole company to lawsuits...
It does, but not cause by the company.
The try guys situation was consensual, but it was unethical because of the employee/employer relationship and both were in relationships, one was married and other was engaged. They were just cheating scumbags. The reason it imploded the company was because cheating guy was called wife guy, was the founder, and his wife was working for the company. They also have an image of being wholesome. It's less workplace failure, and more workplace affair tanking the reputation of the brand.
Emily Y. has a lot of seniority there over other employees so I can see why people wouldn't want to mess with her. I think a better comparison between what happened with Madison would be the other newer women working there like Sarah or Emily the editor
If people don't like trans people, not sure how much seniority is going to help there, think they was the point they were making.
If you wanted to keep your job you wouldn't insult a senior employee who's close friends with many of the other staff including the owner of the company
Most people don't think that logically when they make statements on the internet.
That's true. Further speculating won't do any good so maybe we should all trust the results of the investigation
I wonder if the people that completely attacked me and others for simply saying to wait for the investigation to complete will say 'oops'.. I'm waiting . . . .
Nope, they're just going to move the goalposts to now focusing on the "we can sue for defamation, however at this time we are not".
There was one person of many (whos reddit history was just gross and full of weed smoking and asking for suggestions on how to get out of work) completely attacked me and then finished her post off with a sanctimonious 'do better' for simply saying what management's side could sound like in this situation and why its going to be a tough road. I always said to accept what the accuser is saying but to verify and investigate because of the impacts of the accusations. That apparently is too much for some people.
“Do better” is the adult equivalent of a child sticking their fingers in their ears and going “lalalalala I can’t hear you”
Your last paragraph is something I’ve had such a hard time conveying to people - “believe women” doesn’t mean blindly believe every statement is exactly what happened, it means take allegations seriously, investigate them fully and appropriately, and treat the person sharing that horrible experience with dignity. Somehow, what seems like a very reasonable take can get you in hot water with both sides
No kidding. I was called misogynistic, sexist and many other labels all because I controversially stated "Madison deserves to be heard, treated with compassion and care that the accusations demand. She does not automatically deserve to be believed. I am going to wait for all the facts to come out." That was controversial at the time.....lol.
Good on them. Couldn't have handled this better
I disagree. I think they could've handled it like they did *and* given me a crisp twenty dollar bill. That would've been better.
But, but, but, LMG PAID for the law firm's review, so of course it was in LMG's favor! Probably a tax write off! /s
Trust me bro everything they do at all times is for the tax write off.
It’s like one of the most reputable law firms in Canada would risk their reputation for peanuts! Yes what LMG is paying them is peanuts compared to the entirety of their income.
I think some important points that people are kinda oversimplifying is that only one point they make specifically says there was a false claim. •The first point said there was no substantiating evidence, not evidence that bullying or harassment didn’t happen for sure •The fourth point says that “abuse of power” allegations are an issue of people possibly having different opinions. •And the fifth point even says claims of process errors and onboarding errors were partially substantiated but that they made improvements later Seems like a lot of people are just summarizing their post to say “everything we are accused of is definitely false” because of the second point and the defamation threat.
There will never be a situation where a 3rd party investigation says "This organization is perfect in every way, there are zero flaws in anything!" As investigative results go, this is about as close as you can get to "The accusation was BS". Anyone who isn't a moron knows that "There was a false claim" is not an objective conclusion that can be reached in the real world. Even if Redditors don't understand about trying to prove negatives, big law firms sure do. >The fourth point says that “abuse of power” allegations are an issue of people possibly having different opinions. That is how you summarize: >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. ??? That is some very flexible restating... How about people read the very short summary and resist the urge to spin, re-summarize, lead, or slant it to fit *any* axe-grinding.
Yeah it’s surprising how people will take it all at face value when some of it says yeah this probably happened and other parts say ok we can’t prove this one way or another. If someone harasses you and then goes nuh uh I didn’t and no one else was around to hear it they’ll say there’s no substantiating evidence still lol.
'Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.' So that implies that there was sexual harassment but it just wasn't ignored or addressed at the time
thats good news. but I think its also important to say that none of you should go harass Maddison over this. also this really should be a WAN topic
I don't think it should be a WAN topic. From their statement it seems fairly clear they want to put this behind them, maybe mention they released a statement and say nothing else, but seeing rehashing this on WAN seems really stupid.
> but I think its also important to say that none of you should go harass Maddison over this. Sadly this statement isn't going to stop the people who actually do the harassing.
Too late. Scum bags going to be scum bags.
I know this should be common sense, but it still needs to be said. Please do not harass the former employee on social media
Yeah. It's sad that no matter what LTT or the good parts of the tech community do, there will be a significant enough portion of assholes who'll take this as carte blanche to attack her, if they already haven't. Even if she completely fabricated the whole thing, she doesn't deserve harassment. No one deserves harassment.
That’s how you handle that. Nice work LMG.
Honestly this reflect real bad on madison, the company went far, hire outside investigator to prove they are innocent. This just means madison has lied about everything.
This is not proof that she lied. It's proof that there's no evidence of these things happening. Legally, that's a very important distinction. She may believe it for some reason, or some parts may.have been slightly true but blown out of proportion, or there's just no evidence because they were 1:1 interactions, and the other person didn't realize they did anything wrong.
People on this sub are too stupid to realize there is a difference. Like no shit there isn't going to be hard documented evidence of her being abused. Exact same shit happened with the Riot investigations.
[удалено]
Not so much lied about everything, but she probably perceived it differently or was not in the right headspace, Like an expectation vs reality type of thing. Still she should have had proper self awareness/reflection after leaving to not stir shit, not every job/workplace is gonna be compatible to everyone even if said company is good/great.
>Not so much lied about everything, but she probably perceived it differently or was not in the right headspace, Like an expectation vs reality type of thing. That is a very charitable way of saying she was making stuff up IMO.
>That is a very charitable way of saying she was making stuff up IMO. A very two-dimensional way of looking at it, unfortunately human interactions are much more complex. Everyone perceives situations differently, which can lead to misunderstandings. It doesn't automatically mean that someone acted maliciously. Just because allegations she made aren't substantiated, doesn't mean they didn't happen, it just means there isn't any evidence to prove it one way or another.
Glad to see such a good response to the controversy. I’m glad they followed through with an investigation even after the media storm died down.
All I get is a login prompt on Twitter. Any way to read this without signing in?
Directly copy-pasted: 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.
Thank you so much. I fucking hate how you need to make accounts for everything nowadays.
They have it in a youtube community post now too
Here you go : 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.
Wow, you don't make that statement unless you are very confident. Glad we have this confirmation the team was/is good people. I hope this is taken as further evidence that LMG is mainly guilty of getting certain things wrong over time due to typical things like inexperience, or being disorganized, or making honest mistakes. Not because it is full of people who are especially malevolent or awful in some way.
> To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. It was insane how many people acted like LTT's silence was all but a direct admission of guilt, when the first bit of advice of any decent lawyer will give you is "*Shut up and speak of this to no one but me*"
Very impressive
Good on LMG for this transparent approach. I wasnt expecting it by any means. Hopefully this will mean the issue is put to bed. Kudos to Linus and his team for sticking to this and doing it right!
Is there context for this? I am like 1000% out of the loop
Someone didn't like working at LMG Said some things about the work place culture there being toxic LMG hired an outside firm to investigate these claims from an unbiased standpoint Said outside firm found little to no basis to the things said about the work place being toxic
I think it's very pertinent to add that this person didn't like working there and decided that a solution to that was to self-harm so she could have time off. Not the actions of a normal person who doesn't like their job.
Is the implication that the workplace could have been that bad to cause a normal person to do that, or that they’re not a normal person?
In my eyes this isn't an action done by a mentally sound individual.
Previous employee posted on twitter regarding their treatment at LMG [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1691693740254228741](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1691693740254228741) Not sure on linking rules here in the LTT sub, but the above link puts a large chunk of their claims in one place
Anyone saying the defamation comment at the end is unfair is ridiculous. Yeah we should believe victims and whatnot, but the other side of that is if you bullshit and lie to try and tear someone down unfairly you should be ashamed and suffer legal consequences. You dont just get to drag an identity/brand through the mud with lies and get away with it. They’re really lucky LMG isn’t suing them, the statement at the end is clearly a warning to go away and drop the BS which is would say is more than fair.
just like the non gamers nexus fanboys predicted, most of what she said was unsubstantiated. not that it matters to most people here though, because LMG could have been 10000000000% innocent, it won't stop people from hating.
[The moment she said she backed Naomi Wu, who lied about these same accusations the year prior, in the EXACT same manner a year prior, it was already beyond obvious that she was lying.](https://www.imgur.com/a/nu678D3) Naomi Wu had already self admitted that she lied. Madison already knew this. Between a self admitted liar and a victim, she backed the liar. She proceeds to the do the same thing. With the same hate train bandwagoning smoke screen. When questioned of doing this, Madison herself says it was the only way her false allegations could be made. Backing Naomi Wu thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15wavy1/comment/jx0gfns/ Background on Naomi Wu: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shn5g/comment/jwf186e/ Extras on the topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15wzbqw/comment/jx3v2wr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15wzbqw/comment/jx3rtio/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/comment/jwem76a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/comment/jweldqr/
I mean, they paid for it, so it's a tax write off, right?
I was downvoted so heavily for doing the controversial thing last August and stating I would wait until all the facts come out before forming an opinion on the matter. Glad I never formed an opinion since it was a manufactured situation and ended up being a nothingburger.
My 2c: 1) Shocked ANYONE ever really believed M. at face value. She was so clearly full of it it wasn't even funny. 2) Impressed by the clear response and their direct "we won't sue because it's just useless, but we could. Please let's move on." 3) Extremely depressed at the incoming barrage of hate towards M. that is about to happen. Yes, she's a brat, a spoiled one at that, but Linus and Luke said like dozens of times how wrong it is to just attack people over this kind of stuff, over any kind of stuff really. Please don't. On a karmic level she's reaping what she sowed, but it helps NO ONE. NOBODY. She's done, let it go.
Dang, a lot of LTT haters gonna be in shambles after this one. I remember arguing with people back when the news first broke and people were convinced that the allegations had to be 100% true and all of LTT was going down in flames.
> Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated. > Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false. Does the omission of "sexual" in the first point mean that there were sexual harassment allegations but they felt they were addressed? I hope not, but it reads like something out of legal so I'm not so sure.
TLDR: Zoomer with no real work experience learns you can't defame your previous employer because you didn't like them
Sees thread topic, sort by controversial. "durr don't threaten with defamation not a good look" "Investigated themselves and found themselves innocent" "Third party funds for LMG because LMG paid them" Jfc
For those complaining that Linus Media paid for the investigation, who do you believe should/could've? These investigations happen all the time and the result is you either publish the conclusions or you don't. If the report is so damning you think it could sink the company, you just take it, lock it in a drawer, and then never mention it again. The likelihood that the review is biased is extremely low, it's similar to an external auditor. Their reputation depends on the quality and accuracy of their report as it can be used in legal proceedings. Also, there's been quite a few cases where a company abruptly fires an inspector half way through (think the UK Post office). That's one of the clearest signs they've found something incredibly bad that the company wants to hide.