this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
324 points (88.8% liked)

Technology

59143 readers
2557 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

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

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rognaut@lemmy.world 162 points 5 months ago (41 children)

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

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

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 78 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 5 months ago (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 35 points 5 months ago

I don't have LTT, I just find it worthless. Their content is frequently shallow, I dislike the presentation (clickbait-y titles and thumbnails, annoying segways, etc), and I find Linus himself annoying. Then again, I do watch their content from time to time, if they have something worth watching. That's not very often, but they do make some decent content occasionally. I rarely care about PC shenanigans, but sometimes I'll watch Jays2Cents if I want some of that (he's perhaps more annoying than Linus, but it is what it is, I guess).

I mostly watch Gamers Nexus for reviews, news, and benchmarks. I find the delivery much more in-line with what I'd like, though I find Steve a bit long-winded so I tend to skip a bunch in the videos. But the content is high quality.

To each their own though. My coworker really like LTT and went to LTX recently, so I'll watch a video here and there for water-cooler discussions.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 months ago

It's unbelievable how much hate for LTT there is on this platform.

They have a huge reach and tremendous influence, but are not always conscientious, careful, and thorough as they should be given their sway. Still, that doesn't justify the vitriol.

load more comments (37 replies)
[–] Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 93 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 124 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

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

[–] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 41 points 5 months ago

As someone who used to work in a job that involved giving companies reports they paid for, I gotta say while large auditing firms will likely defend their reputation before the company that hired them, mid and small companies will just follow the paycheck. Doesn't look that big to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 72 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I think part of it was the stress of the grindset that Linus running the show was getting all the staff into. Pushing out content at a regular schedule, getting sponsorships and all of that.

The whole GN saga with data accuracy and the donated cooler that made LMG look inward for a bit and improve their process was for the best I think.

The investigation to me is just one element making sure LMG weren't getting off on the wrong foot.

I think the complainant wasn't wrong or defamatory at all to bring up concerns because even in LTT's channel there was a video where the front and center stars of the team comment on how stressful things can be. When there's an implicit hierarchy imbalance (Linus can say "we're all equals here" all he wants) but fact is there's a leadership structure in one way or another, which can cause one to take certain treatment in different ways.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It was a necessary "drama" imo. You mentioned the stress the team was put through but also I think Linus' ego needed to be brought down a lot. The way he talked on wan show about the cooler is like someone who thinks he is a tech god, saying something is bad is expected but outright claiming the product is worthless and will never amount to anything is just bad taste specially when you got it for free AND didn't bother testing it properly.

One can hope this situation will bring positive lasting change to the way the company is run but also the image Linus has of himself.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

specially when you got it for free

This is irrelevant IMO, getting a product for free shouldn't impact your review at all. The issue is they didn't test it properly, which is what people watch the video for.

That said, I like GN's policy here: no free stuff.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 62 points 5 months ago (9 children)

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

[–] MSids@lemmy.world 55 points 5 months ago (1 children)

At my work we pay auditors to assess our security controls and I would chose a different company if I thought they were being anything less than honest with us on their findings. The agreements and SOW are set up at the beginning of the engagement, so the investigators get paid regardless of their findings. It's not like the bond rating agencies on Wall Street.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 35 points 5 months ago (5 children)

There's a difference in stakes and impact and intent: the client firm is actively interested in finding security holes and the outcome of a negative security report does not (usually) directly affect the continuing operations of the business or impact on the personal reputations of the business owners their ability to conduct business, or how moral they're perceived by society.

A negative report here would be a devastating blow on Linus himself, his business is built around him and relies on audiences trusting him, it would also open up the door for legal action that could result in massive monetary damages and fines.

I've had "independent" valuations and audits. I've seen how these firms work - and it's not independent. They obey the people that pay them or they don't get any work in the future from anyone else "that firm destroyed my business".

The most suspect aspect of the report is that they found nothing negative, everything was perfect. This on its face doesn't ring true for any business I've ever seen, as well as how they responded to the accusations and how many people came out to accuse them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] psion1369@lemmy.world 46 points 5 months ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 31 points 5 months ago (34 children)

Okay. So what should LTT have done?

Ignore it completely and not respond?

load more comments (34 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Vivendi@lemmy.zip 50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So basically they hired a law firm that gets paid by corporations to dissolve evidence and destroy lawsuits and they "didn't find anything"

Right, another day in capitalist heaven

[–] Mataresian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Though that is fruit for thought I can not find any information to back op that claim. I did however found articles about them defending remote working. It's a bit too easy to me to throw out claims such as this without backing it up with facts. But if you do have any other examples I would love to read them.

[–] rayashino@lemmy.world 34 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

I did not do any research but to me the comment you replied to made me pause and think for a bit.

If someone immediately assumes that a third party investigator is just being paid off by the firm they're investigating, how is that firm supposed to prove their "innocence" to someone like that? A second investigator could just get a paycheck aswell, so that doesn't change anything. They obviously can't just publish the relevant information for privacy reasons.

What else are they supposed to do? I think that a certain amount of mistrust is good, especially when it comes to things where money and/or reputation is on the line, but the closer you get to personal relationships the more harmful unwarranted mistrust can be. Idk why I'm writing this reply to you, its more directed at the original comment poster, but ig I'm continuing on a tangent

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world 44 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I mean I guess its slightly reassuring. Truth is, its hard to trust a "moderator" that you paid for. Its just the nature of how shit works.

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 55 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The thing is that it's the best they can do, which is about all we can ask for. No one is going to do a good job at the investigation for free.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] credo@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I really key in on the language of these types of releases. First is,

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same.

So.. keeping yo mouth shut is not ensuring a “fair investigation.” It’s protecting yourself.

Next, phrases like,

Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

Is not proof of anything- other than there was no proof. That’s why you hire a third party to speak for you. Instead of you saying, “I didn’t do it,” (which of course almost anyone would - true or not) the “independent” investigator can say, “I didn’t find any proof.”

The strongest language here,

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

..is interesting. I guess it depends on what they mean by “addressed.” If I slapped a colleague on the back and said, “That was hilarious!”, I hardly ignored it. You could even say I addressed it.

I’m not saying I believe I’ve way or the other. All I’m pointing out is this means basically nothing.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 39 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is not proof of anything

You'll be waiting a while then. You can't prove a negative. If LMG says they didn't do a thing, and an investigation concluded that there was no substantial evidence that they did that thing, what more do you want?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] greencactus@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That changes my perspective on them a lot. Well, another lesson taken - don't jump too quickly onto conclusions.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›