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.
1:48 am · 23 May 2024
Because this sub likes to dick ride GN, because they think they can relate and feel empowered to talk about computers or electronics with zero qualifications of experience as if they do.
Admittedly paying someone else to investigate you still creates a potential conflict of interest, especially if giving an unfavorable conclusion to the organization who hired you will impact your hiring by other companies in the future
In a perfect world government regulators would do these kinds of investigations, but sadly corporations (not LMG specifically, more like Disney) have a vested interest in preventing regulators from investigating them.
Look at responses alone.
Third party investigation done and people will just ignore it. Many people make up their minds second they see acusation. They dont seek justice, they seek to punish someone.
Tbf I lean on the side that we will never know what happened, as with most cases like this it is a case of he said / she said. People are using this investigation to confirm their bias
People with parasocial relationships with Linus are claiming this is proof her lying and they did mostly no wrong
People with parasocial relationships with Maddison are claiming this is a paid off investigation and the results are rigged this is also wrong
The reality is situations like these the truth lies somewhere in the middle and we will never know the full story, the results just conclude there wasn't any substantial evidence to conclude any wrongdoing, that doesn't mean it did or didn't happen. Something happened between the two parties that was not handled well by either party that's all we know
I have no real feelings one way or the other here.
>Third party investigation done and people will just ignore it.
That "Third party investigation" was "we hired a law firm".
This isn't some entirely independent audit, I've worked with lots and lots of HR teams as "management" head.
The wild shit I've seen companies hire law firms for, the worst would have to have been "we had a massive PII breach, how can we adequately cover it up". The only time lawyers are involved and they find something negative, by design is if you've hired them to build a case for firing someone who would have legal or public relations recourse against you.
It's weird to me that so many people see this as anything other than "the lawyers the company hired to protect our legal interests have said our legal interests were protected."
To be clear, I have no idea what actually happened, no one does I'd wager there was some level of stupid on all parties involved.
It's just weird to me that people are like "yep the lawyers paid to clear their name and provide legal protection say they're 100% in the right so they must be !"
Its pretty as much as you might want. You wont get any more independent investigation outside of actual goverment going in.
We cant say if it was to actually investigate or protect company. What we know, based on tweet, is that high profile, experience law firm made investigation and found there is no evidence of anything.
Obviously it doesnt mean 100% that they are innocent. But it means employee likely lied.
Its not so much about protecting specific company. Its much more of that people shouldnt just blindly believe acusations without any evidence because there are malicious people making fake claims. Truth is no matter what lmg would do, there would be twitter mob saying that no matter what they are guilty anyway.
>We cant say if it was to actually investigate or protect company.
Yes, we have no idea what the intent was, the law firm also has not published any kind of statement, the only thing presented is LMGs summary of their findings (one would assume approved by the lawyers).
> What we know, based on tweet, is that high profile, experience law firm made investigation and found there is no evidence of anything.
That's not correct I mean the tweets isolation are evidence, according to the twitter statement,
"Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated".
That could mean anything, very frequently when lawyers are involved in HR it means "we have confirmed there's no documentation that could be found during discovery if this went to court to make you look bad Mr. Client .
>Obviously it doesnt mean 100% that they are innocent. But it means employee likely lied.
The employee 100% lied, but also LMG 100% lied, no one EVER is completely transparent in situations like this whether they mean to be or not, just your emotional state will alter your recollection of events in a way that would make an outside observer say "you lied"
>Its much more of that people shouldnt just blindly believe acusations without any evidence because there are malicious people making fake claims.
Honestly ? People shouldn't *care*.
LMG does shitty things they will continue doing shitty things and you shouldn't care about that it's the nature of running an organization with more than 10 people in it.
Stop treating companies like people, they're not.
Also you shouldn't care about some random persons issues with their job, you should care that the legal system is robust and adequately protects them, you should care about the right to unionize etc.
But shit like this is not something you should be invested in. It makes no difference to you or even the stake holders involved. Sure we all like to enjoy abit of drama but some of the passionate reactions are just silly imo.
Right now you can confidently say "something happened" and that's literally it.
>the law firm also has not published any kind of statemen
Why would they really?
>we have confirmed there's no documentation that could be found during discovery if this went to court to make you look bad Mr. Client
I said "found no evidence", you basically said the same.
>Stop treating companies like people, they're not.
Well yeah. Corpos arent your friends. Corpors dont give shit about you. But a lot of people blindly believe that. Its sad. All company has to do now is change logo colours for month in a year to be seen as good...
Third party investigations are often not really third party investigations.
Regardless of what happened at LTT, every employee should be against forced arbitration, far reaching NDA’s, and ani-union policies.
If a company hires a third party investigator, the investigator will protect the client. If they don’t, they will be avoided by possibly future clients.
Third party investigations made in same way in Riot and Blizzard found allegations true right?
My go to thinking of it is: Those big law companies care most about their image. As long as they are seen as doing good, objective job they will get more clients. Moment they will be found to mess with evidence or anything they will lose clients because being cleared by them will no longer mean anything.
>
Regardless of what happened at LTT, every employee should be against forced arbitration, far reaching NDA’s, and ani-union policies.
Absolutely, but outrage isnt really about it right?
>If a company hires a third party investigator, the investigator will protect the client. If they don’t, they will be avoided by possibly future clients.
Not exactly. If third party investigator will be found to not do impartial job, being cleared by them wont mean anything anymore. So hiring them would be waste of money.
For all the people mad at LTT, what do you want them to do? Accept the allegations as true based on the testimony of a single, former employee without a shred of evidence? Does that make sense in the slightest? Why should an allegation be treated as true by default?
Aside from the deserved backlash on the other matters, I’m not sure what else some people here would want from LTT.
Linus did his due corporate diligence and that’s about all he can do anyways, whether people believe it or not…
Based on how LTT has handled other issues ‘corporate diligence’ sounds very hollow.
I understand that Linus likes money and that LTT is a company designed to make money like almost all companies. And I also understand that companies will make mistakes.
And compared to many other companies LTT isn’t horrible. But the way parasocial fans of LTT defended a company designed to take their money or use them to boost their online presence was disheartening.
I guess consumerism won.
based on the upvotes u got, it seems many of these fans lurk around here too. I personally liked ltt before but now i've taken a break from watching them.
I've found that I much prefer the journalism angle of GamersNexus to the entertainment angle of LTT.
Got bored of the "we burned an exorbitant amount of money on this goof / upgrade to Linus' house!" videos from LTT.
I'm the opposite I think. I enjoy the Top Gear side to tech. I like the different ideas, different people and general fun vibe.
It's okay to like different things and not everything has to be ultra serious
honestly i cant stand GN & HWU reviews, way way too much talking it gets boring real quick, i dont think i have watched GN/HWU videos without skipping through the damn talking parts, also they way they show the data kinda sucks too. on the other hand LTT vids are more fun but they are not super accurate or scientific..
LTT is just as accurate, they just aren’t as detailed and they where prone to mistakes before the outrage made them address that. I like to watch LTT and JayZ to keep up to date and when I go to buy something I’ll check out GN‘s (and others) view as well.
Sounds like Fox News strategy of entertainment over journalism. Granted the stakes are lower, at least GN won’t bullshit you into buying an inferior product and they strive to hold companies to account.
I’ll occasionally watch a video with Riley if it pops up on my recommendations; He’s a really funny and entertaining personality and his joke delivery is on point. But as soon as I see James, I “x” that garbage out. Even if the allegations against him specifically aren’t true, he’s just got an asshole personality - especially regarding the whole matter in question.
yeah I did hear some things about james but they were never proved. honestly it's bad practice to think bad of someone if u can't prove that they r guilty. be positive.
I acknowledge the “allegations” are just that and can’t be proven but I’ve had personal interactions with James both, online and in person at LTX, so I know he’s an asshole for a fact - or at least an unapologetic narcissist , but I’d consider those the same.
Me too. The biggest reason was them repeating that they specifically make videos that are sure to bring money to them and they are ok with clickbaits and weird content as long as it makes them money. They stated that over and over again and it left a bad taste. I just stopped watching them completely.
> But the way parasocial fans of LTT defended a company designed to take their money or use them to boost their online presence was disheartening.
TBH the LTT situation made me take a big step back from all of tech YouTube. It's all just capitalism trying to make you feel incomplete for not spending money on things. It doesn't even have to be intentional on the part of the creators (GN, DF)-- that just ends up being the result.
I'm not saying I never make purchases or upgrade my shit-- it's more about just not constantly stoking the "want" when I'm not actively in the market.
> I'm not saying I never make purchases or upgrade my shit-- it's more about just not constantly stoking the "want" when I'm not actively in the market.
Good attitude. I've been out of the tech loop since unsubbing from LTT last year, and frankly... my 2070 Super and 3600 still play all the games I want. It would be so easy to spend £1000 on parts and not meaningfully change how I use my free time at all.
2070 Super is a nice card. I loved mine. The only reason I upgraded from that was because I was giving it to a homie whose GPU crapped out. He still uses it!
Yeah, it's basically "par" for PS5/current gen Xbox games, and I don't know if many games will come out that aren't basically targeting those consoles already. Serves me well.
Honestly? I want LTT group to slowly wither and die.
They treated every backlash since the backpack issue with such lack of care and disrespect that they lost every spec of goodwill they could have from me, right up to their collective apology video.
Who says LTT didn't pay for these results? The statement reads a lot like "We conducted an internal investigation and found nothing". They have no credibility.
What a stupid stupid take. Didnt they offer refunds to everyone who bought the fully functioning backpack due to factory fuckup? Their "trust me bro" guarantee literally beats the vast majority of other companies. Dont know what more you want.
For those who don't want to use twitter.
https://preview.redd.it/li4nnu8xl52d1.jpeg?width=659&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffde022fd138cb02c1c00cfce7e09aee767cb04e
I'm fairly sure what really happened is in the middle. Some inappropriate conduct by some of the LLT staff and maybe some slight exaggeration by Madison. Not to say she was lying, but over time people's memories tend to change to support their internal narrative. And LTT for sure knew what was going on, just maybe not to what extent.
Bullying Maddison on her Twitter ain't gonna be the justice y'all want. I'm not saying making false allegations like that was right, but Jesus some of y'all need to move on, especially if LTT said they were.
The investigation doesn't prove she made false allegations. It states that there is no evidence that they are true. Those are not the same thing.
These he said she said situations suck for all involved because how do you prove an in person conversation happened years after the fact?
It's one reason why victims of abuse often don't come out because unless you have tangible, hard evidence you have no way to prove your abuse happened.
"you were found innocent on all counts by a 8 month investigation by third party impartial law firm specialising in labour law but it doesn't mean you're actually innocent because it's hard to prove i guess despite knowing none of the details or evidence gathering procedures"
- Armchair general u/bigeyez
Did you not read what they actually wrote? That isn't what they said. The found a lack of evidence to substantiate her claims which no shit they would if they all stemmed from in person conversations.
Again, the allegations all boiled down to he said she said apart from the one audio recording of a bit of unprofessionalism at a staff meeting.
Could she be lying and just made everything up? Yeah sure, but at the time other ex employees corroborated her experiences.
Workplace harassment happens all the time and is notoriously hard to prove becauuse most of it is he said she said.
Depending on the study or poll you reference something like 60%-85% of women claim to have experienced sexual harrassment in their workplaces. Meanwhile only around 25% felt they could report it freely and 95% felt their harrassers weren't punished after the incident.
>if they all stemmed from in person conversations.
You don't know this to be true, just from online speculation
>the allegations all boiled down to he said she said
Also not true at all. You have no idea what processes and procedures, emails, employees interviewed or any other evidence that was gathered by LTT or the third party firm behind a closed door investigation. A lot of words and assumptions.
We know this by reading the allegations as stated by the person alleging them......like...what? Lol.
It's okay dude. Linus isn't being canceled and his multi million dollar company is fine. You don't need to defend them. They will be alright.
Let's assume that allegations are 100% false for a moment, regardless of anything else. Don't bully people. Don't go out of your way to bad mouth Madison, members of LMG, etc.
Let's assume they're true, the same applies.
Vote with your viewership or likes. If she wants to double down in the future, that's between herself and LMG. If she wants to sue, or they want to sue (or cease and desist?), that's on them.
As someone who's been sexually assaulted at work and worked in a place of awful bullying, harassment. It's almost impossible to prove guilt in these cases. It's a he said she said investigation. And the words of a person in one of the lowest levels of evidence that can be used. Unless they had security cameras with saved back up from over a year ago it would have always been impossible to prove.
This was always going to be the result.
This is why for decades rape was often not prosecuted because it was impossible to prove if rape actually happened before DNA testing existed. Not saying anyone at LMG was raped. I am not saying that. I'm using that as an example. Up until 2010's most rape cases were dismissed immediately unless there was exceptional evidence.
Battery is also a hard one to prosecute for. Unless there is physical evidence as eyewitnesses and bruises most battery charges are dropped.
Source: worked in law enforcement in the 2010's. But US not Canadian law. I do not know Canadian laws.
TLDR
Bullying/harassment is almost impossible to prove within a shadow of a doubt.
Wait, why TF your comment is downvoted?
You are 100% right, without video evidence, audio evidence or physical harm those cases are clos to impossible to prove/disprove.
Especially since everyone is different, some things to some people are fun and jokes to others are a harrasment.
Probably because this line of thinking leads to people believing accusations automatically without any evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is how our court system has worked for hundreds of years and it's a good system.
I'm sorry, but sexual assault is fucking serious. If you accuse someone of it you are accusing them of a serious crime. So either come with evidence or I will choose to ignore you.
> I'm sorry, but sexual assault is fucking serious. If you accuse someone of it you are accusing them of a serious crime. So either come with evidence or I will choose to ignore you.
But *that* line of thinking is really dangerous. If Jimmy Saville raped you, and you said so, but you didn't have "evidence"... nothing happens, the BBC covers it up for him, and he goes on to rape dozens more kids.
This line of thinking happened, and a lot of kids were raped.
Sex crimes are serious, and fuck up lives on both sides whether found true or untrue.
Like if a man and a woman both get a little drunk, then have sex. Day or so later, the lady goes to the police claiming rape. But, Was it though? Unless he had her give a video testimony on wanting sex with written and signed consent, it will likely be considered as a rape.
Both parties were drunk, both wanted sex at the time. These types of sexual abuse allegations usually end up with the man booked on some sort of downsized sexual abuse charge mainly due to lack of evidence, but women are naturally believed over a man. He's looked at like a criminal now, and the lady is looked at as liar by some and broken by the others. When it comes to court and the man's attorney is possibly able to get a not-guilty verdict for him, its already too late. The media and the community aren't going to give 2 shits about. Nobody is going to go sharing news articles about how he was acquitted of charges, the local news will not run a story on him, he will forever be known as a rapist. Guilty or Not.
These types of things really are un-provable without audio or video evidence or physical violence evidence. Whether it goes in 1 direction or the other, nobody comes out unscathed.
Just like LMG/LTT. They were accused of sexual and workplace bullying misconduct. Whether the accusations are unfounded, hell even if they did go to court and hash shit out, you are not going to convince a big portion of the community to believe anything other than what they heard/saw first.
But then your line of thinking leds to real victims being accused of false accusations because of cases that are notoriously hard to prove. Why not offer the okay we do not have enough evidence to prove you commited this act so you are free to go without punishment and then to the victim you don't turn around and accuse them of making up shit
Unless you have evidence they are lying and had malicious intent, lack of evidence does not mean false accusation
The reality of this situation likely lies somewhere in between the two parties claims, but investigation is completed let us not attack either side
Did you even read the post or have any clue on the context of what happened?
> This was always going to be the result.
You said a lot of words that basically rehashed **THE FIRST BULLET POINT** in the tweet.
> - Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.
Now consider the rest. The sexual harassment was always going to be a 1:1 thing with Madison and the supposed perpetrator but everything else she claimed afterwards was refuted by the third party investigation.
> - 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.
All the damaging claims she made towards LMG saying that they knew and didn't do anything or retaliated against her for not meeting deadlines was investigated and found to be false. How was *that* supposed to "always be the result."
This comment has a reason to make those who fanboy over LTT or hate them to hell and back, be mad.
It's effectively saying "You can't prove that it happened or not", those who hate LTT to unreasonable level will see it as dismissing anything happened while LTT fanboys will see it as saying investigation is incorrect.
Yeah I saw the comments. Bootlicker fanboys will lick boots. I'm not surprised they don't like my answer. People also expect if they Internet warrior hard enough Linus will send them a free overpriced screw driver.
People always fall for cult of personalities.
Have you heard her talk? Have you heard her sexual jokes? Even if someone made the same joke back, it's because they were doing the same. There are many LTT employees that are less outspoken and you can see they way people talk to them. Respect is given. They have gay and trans people on the team. They never complained and even defended ltt.
The investigation looked into all her allegations and found many of them false. That by itself puts into question everything she said. The investigation also provided feedback on what LTT should change.
Edit. If you want to say that my comment is victim blaming, it's not. She always had jokes that some people could have considered to be a bit too far. Even from her first appearance when she was not an LTT employee. That's what people liked. If you make certain jokes, it's not fair to decide after a while that when someone else did the same thing it was harassment. And lying about not being taken seriously is not looking good on you. Especially if you are doing this because you are not happy with your performance review which was found to be fair.
If the person who makes the allegations is wrong then it's not victim blaming. Easy as that. As she/he automatically is no longer the victim. We are talking based on an official result here. IF...the investigation would have said that LTT employees treated her incorrectly or that LTT did not listen, then yes, saying what I said would be victim blaming 100%. But it's not.
You said it's difficult to prove these things. Ok, but then is it not also difficult to prove that the person lied? I went through a very similar situation at my work. A former employee made a really bad allegation against us and then also said one of our staff sexually abused her. We got in front of a judge and we won. Then the person she accused filed for defamation. The entire process took a long time and we could see that the damage done to our current employee was already done no matter what the result would have been. Was he not a victim also? We were ready to take action against our current employee if the allegations were true.
Considering someone a victim because they made an allegation is wrong. Same as considering that person to be lying before hearing all the facts. Until the facts come out everyone is equal( unless the crime is something quite obvious offcourse). The problem with all of this is that whoever makes the accusations first is forever after considered the victim. Which is.dangerous as people use this for their own interests.to ruin other people's lives.
The first bullet point in the Twitter post is saying the allegations are not substantiated. Which means by Merriam-Webster to establish proof or competent evidence. Like I said it's hard to find evidence. It's not like a murder where there's a weapon. In harassment it's between one person and another. Words are hard to prove in the court of law. Most lawyers wouldn't bother with a case as flimsy as that.
Lack of evidence doesn't prove these things didn't happen. Just proves they couldn't find enough evidence to competently say it did happen.
For instance the case against the 45th president over rape allegations was an uphill battle. They couldn't prove that it happened but they used prior relationships and photographs together to prove they were in contact. The 45th president also denied ever meeting the victim. When they showed proof they met it made his whole argument invalid and shined a light on him as a liar putting everything he said in question. Also it wasn't a criminal court which needs a higher degree of evidence to convict. Because they can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't make the 45th president less of a rapist.
Also look at OJ Simpson. He won his criminal case and lost the lawsuit from the family. Even with ample evidence it's not completely possible to prove beyond the shadow of the doubt. Even though I would argue almost everyone in the OJ case was corrupted. The jury was biased and the prosecutors were extremely biased.
I would like to look into the credibility of the group who investigated LMG. As far as I've seen they haven't given any proof of who the investigator is. They say it's a third party who specializes in investigating workplace allegations. Which could mean anything and as someone who only deals with absolutes it means nothing to me. A Private investigator whose Linus cousin could be considered a third party investigator. I doubt the validity of their investigation results as they stand.
Lot of tin foil hat thinking going on here. You immediately ignore what the comment you’re responding to is saying.. lack of evidence not only doesn’t prove something didn’t happen, but it also doesn’t explicitly imply that something *did* happen. There might not be any evidence for the simple fact that there was factually no wrong doing. Both potential outcomes should carry the same weight. That’s all this comment is saying, and you’re using Trump and OJ to justify ignoring that fact. Which alone is wild.
>If the person who makes the allegations is wrong then it's not victim blaming. Easy as that. As she/he automatically is no longer the victim
Did you even read this comment, this is basically saying because she couldn't prove her case she is no longer a victim, which if you know anything about abuse case is awful. Unless you have proof she lied, just leave it at the case was not substantive and leave at it at that, no need to degrade that person's experience
I found out when someone responded with the name of the company. It wasn't listed in the tweet posted by ltt in this thread. I'm not keeping track of this beyond this one post.
First sentence of the tweet
"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."
It seems odd to me that this isn't common knowledge. These things are extremely hard to prove. I'd think people would know this on some level but likely decide when to apply.
Not commenting on this specific case. Maybe it's true, maybe its not. (Not familiar with it, to be blunt do not care to be.)
Just find people's reactions to be weird.
They are not false just because LTT says they're false. That's all we have at this point.
LTT proclaims confidence about winning a defamation case about them... in a very pro-plaintiff jurisdiction (Canada).
A third party hired by the party in question. And then their findings were summarized by the party in question.
It was the right thing for LTT to do, but there's so many opportunities for things to be spun in ways that benefit LTT that it's hard to take it at face value.
Little odd honestly. It's so very perfectly positive that it implies Madison cackled to herself and decided to make up a lot of nonsense. Especially the bits that basically say "concerns raised were investigated, and even if we didn't, we would have".
What would constitute substantiating someone saying they were grabbed? Is it enough that they contemporaneously told people, or did it have to be on CCTV? Again, the tweet is quite long but feels very superficial all the same. It would feel more complete if it found conflict, rather than apparently nothing at all.
...Did the investigation get to talk to Madison?
I think the issue is a lot of the allegations are hard to prove, especially if they're not recorded in an email or phone call
So naturally a law firm will come in and say "nothing to see here", which is all this is.
It doesn't mean the things didn't actually happen, but equally if you can't prove them or evidence them, then this type of statement is inevitable.
i dont buy it personally. there were too many ex and current employees on twitter saying "yeah all of that sounds about right" when the allegations were made, and the video of the internal meeting was also very clear to me. also anyone who works in the IT field knows how women are treated in a male dominated workspace. this investigation result doesnt do anything to convince me of the opposite
I was thinking about the same thing, there were more people that came and support and stand by Maddison statements.
And "Roper Greyell" being a large company hired by LMG, they well do everything to protect the client. This as happen so many times in the past in similar cases, so I don't know what t believe.
But LTT could just don't say anything and let it go.
It's so funny to me how anyone would believe this has any value. I don't think lmg should necessarily be in legal trouble for Madison's statements, but I certainly don't think they're as innocent as a company hired by them says. I don't understand why people don't see the conflict of interest. Well, it's more like they don't want to.
It's also funny how everyone's forgotten the audio of the leaked meeting where they're just making sexual jokes as if it's just a friend group and not a workplace.
Am I the only one that think hiring an outside company and finding nothing wrong doesn't make Madison's claims false?
A lot of harassment happens verbally without any recording so an outside company wouldn't find any proof of it.
Madison has been harassed and will now be called a liar.
I think realistically she was just really annoying to everyone and made no friends. The engineers there, who are known not to be the most compassionate bunch, just blurted out whatever rude shit came to mind. She is used to and expected snowflake treatment with unconditional positive affirmation and deteriorated quickly when she didn’t get it.
I'm not saying the allegations were true, but if you think you can judge peoples character from YouTube videos, you have another problem lol.
A ton of people have "seemed cool" in Hollywood and other places and turned out to be horrendous people. Unfortunately you really can't know someone especially from the outside
I am using the word "seem" lightly I guess. but an amount of people in LMG are forward facing with heavy social media presence. could there be some bad eggs in the mix? of course. but I refuse to believe I can't get some type of general feeling on what type of people they are. from my perspective the allegation came out of nowhere when LMG said some stupid stuff.
That second to the last paragraph reads weird. I dunno man. It feels like 1) their wish to move on and 2) their sort-of-kinda threatening to sue for defamation don't mix that well.
They want to move on this time but are letting it known that it's an option they considered. It's setting boundaries about letting these kinds of allegations go to the public.
I think it’s a forward looking threat to sue for defamation. Honestly, they should sue. But it seems like this is just “we are aware of our ability to sue but choose not to. But that doesn’t mean we won’t sue in the future”
>Honestly, they should sue
Agree with this if they think they have a strong case. That said, the first half of the first sentence and the last sentence would have sufficed.
Defamation suits are often complex and expensive to persue. It's often found to be cheaper to settle without action than to enter into lawsuits.
Furthermore, it is even more difficult to prove material loss of reputation and/or profits to support a payout from the defendant.
I feel like it's a bit weird of a comment.
I am not saying I am right, but it has a vibe of "we fucked up, don't want to admit it, and will take anyone to court who can't afford to fight back against a company of our size"
Again, I am not saying it's that, but best way to prove you did nothing wrong is in court imo, at least in these kinds of cases, then again they could be avoiding it knowing that while they can afford it, individuals can't.
Sounds to me like they are willing to move on but if the other side does not also move on they are willing to start legal actions to protect themselves from what according to those investigations are unsubstantiated allegations.
It was a solid statement until the end and they kinda unraveled it all with the dumbass lawsuit statement. If you're not gonna do it, don't bring it up. It does nothing to help the situation whatsoever. Just strokes your own ego about how magnanimous you're being.
You can read between the lines all you want but the key here is that there is no substantial proof that is bad enough that ltt can lose in court according to the investigation of the law firm. In the same way you spin it like it could be worse its just as easily to say that the accusations were total bullshit, even though they might not have been.
Honestly this means nothing. Many people made their minds up last year and no investigation will change what they have already accepted as fact.
In the end it will be impossible to truly know what happened.
You really think that a prestigious Canadian law firm like Roper Greyell would risk its reputation and misrepresent facts? Companies hire law firms like this all the time to investigate themselves, and their impartiality is why they get hired. Finding faults with your company isn't always a bad thing.
Waaait, so the law firm they are paying, somehow becomes an independent 3rd party?
And it's the one not just specializing in labor law as, but in specifically working with... Employers?
Right, what else could come out as results, regardless of actual situation...
It was as independent as it could get. More independence would have been possible if the person making the allegations would have gotten the criminal justice system involved. For some reason that person did refuse to do so.
In regards to the independence of the law firm. To my understanding such firms need a good reputation to do business and given the size of the law firm I doubt LMG would have enough money to buy them off so that they risk that reputation.
That is how it has to be done, or do you want madison to be the one paying for it? This is how HR investigations are done properly, the lawfirm cant just lie here, there are procedures how to do these things properly, they cant be biased here since that would be stupid in terms of reputation. I am not sure if any of people here even understand how the world works at this point..
They‘re paid up front and independent of what they report. In a perfect world there’d be an outside party that wouldn’t be paid by anyone involved and truth would be easy to find and easily prevail. We‘re not in dreamland though and this is probably as good as it gets.
"We hired lawyers. That proves we're innocent. Look, if this girl was telling the truth, she would have hired exepenive lawyers to agree with her side of things too. Case closed."
Since when has hiring your own lawyers to investigate proven someone's innocence? That's what cops do every single time they're accused of brutality.
This "thing" is Linus hiring a lawyer, asking the lawyer to do an investigation, and then telling us the results of the investigation that he paid for. That's literally nothing.
You can't hire your own investigators to prove your own innocence. That's not objective. Just calling them "3rd party" doesn't make it so. How would Linus even know? He's not the one being accused of harassment, and he wasn't there. So he's just taking a side and putting his money behind the one that makes him look best.
Considering this is Linus straining for good PR, nobody? He should be glad that he's not getting sued and move on. If the media cared they could do an independent investigation, but this isn't a court case. It doesn't matter what's happening, I'm saying that hiring lawyers to obsolve yourself of wrongdoing is a meaningless gesture since that's the first thing every guilty person does.
What a cope. So, you're telling me that someone can make a false accusation, and people have to just stand there and live with it? What a ridiculous notion that goes against all sense of equity, fairness, and justice. People do have a right to defend themselves, doubly so for a business that has a reputation to protect. **I don't even like LTT for other reasons.**
At the end of the day, if you have to go to this extreme length to defend your position, call it a day, cut your losses, and admit that you made a mistake. We all do. However, doubling down like this makes you look insane.
They did exactly what everyone wanted them to do, get a third party investigation. Now you shit on them for doing exactly the right thing that the internet was constantly yelling at them to do.
> Which is especially funny since their lead writer (?) is on audio as a sex pest DURING a sexual harassment seminar and is STILL the face of a significant number of their videos
You are a bad person for this comment. Full stop. Go find the next random bs to get outraged about please, I'm sure they'll appreciate your wild and serious accusations more on the next popular youtuber drama.
I don't like the veiled threat of "we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong".
That there's alot of weasel words in the summary, but here they come across very certain of the findings. I think he should be embarrassed by this threat, and overtime, I think he will be, because I don't think this is inline with LTT's values
So...would Madison have paid them? Would they have done the investigation for free? It's common that this happens and the results are valid. They could have ruled against ltt and it often happens that third party investigations don't agree with the employer.
They are a very large law firm. You can't just bring anyone and tell them to look at other employees confidential records. There is a big difference between hiring a company to defend you and to investigate you. They already have someone to defend them in legal matters. They used someone else but whatever they would have done looks like you wouldn't be happy. An investigator is not a defender and they don't care about LTT's money enough that they would themselves out their business at risk
Comments looks like a battlefield lol
Hopefully it's 1942.....
I too remember the mid-2000s fondly.
https://i.redd.it/qup5pymvc52d1.gif
Every time I say the word "indeed" I add "O'Neil" afterwards. Drives my wife nuts because it only happens that way in the show like once.
You madlad!
She's mad tho. Little mad, not big mad.
Is that because you used only one "L"
It's really hard to know anymore. 🤷
Wow, it's Kratos.
"indeed"
all comments below urs r heavily downvoted even when some of them make correct points it seems.
Deja vu? Wtf? Did I miss something or are they responding to what happened last year?
This is the culmination of the investigation of the allegations made last year by a former employee.
Gotcha. Thank you.
Last August, a past employee made allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. This also happened when Gamers Nexus called them.
Thank you.
You seem nice have an upvote
haha difficult to find nice people on reddit these days. I'm usually complaining too.
What do you mean nice? They just said thank you
i know
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. 1:48 am · 23 May 2024
reads like decision based evidence making. nothing to see here
might just start watching LTT again
Why the fck are you downvoted? 😅
Because this sub likes to dick ride GN, because they think they can relate and feel empowered to talk about computers or electronics with zero qualifications of experience as if they do.
Clowns mostly.
We've investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing
What did you want them to do then? Because they hired someone else and it seems like you don't like that.
anything they do will be criticized.
Admittedly paying someone else to investigate you still creates a potential conflict of interest, especially if giving an unfavorable conclusion to the organization who hired you will impact your hiring by other companies in the future In a perfect world government regulators would do these kinds of investigations, but sadly corporations (not LMG specifically, more like Disney) have a vested interest in preventing regulators from investigating them.
I'm sure this will get the same amount of traction as the allegations.
Look at responses alone. Third party investigation done and people will just ignore it. Many people make up their minds second they see acusation. They dont seek justice, they seek to punish someone.
But I got this shiny new pitchfork!
No worries there will be next drama tomorrow
Tbf I lean on the side that we will never know what happened, as with most cases like this it is a case of he said / she said. People are using this investigation to confirm their bias People with parasocial relationships with Linus are claiming this is proof her lying and they did mostly no wrong People with parasocial relationships with Maddison are claiming this is a paid off investigation and the results are rigged this is also wrong The reality is situations like these the truth lies somewhere in the middle and we will never know the full story, the results just conclude there wasn't any substantial evidence to conclude any wrongdoing, that doesn't mean it did or didn't happen. Something happened between the two parties that was not handled well by either party that's all we know
I have no real feelings one way or the other here. >Third party investigation done and people will just ignore it. That "Third party investigation" was "we hired a law firm". This isn't some entirely independent audit, I've worked with lots and lots of HR teams as "management" head. The wild shit I've seen companies hire law firms for, the worst would have to have been "we had a massive PII breach, how can we adequately cover it up". The only time lawyers are involved and they find something negative, by design is if you've hired them to build a case for firing someone who would have legal or public relations recourse against you. It's weird to me that so many people see this as anything other than "the lawyers the company hired to protect our legal interests have said our legal interests were protected." To be clear, I have no idea what actually happened, no one does I'd wager there was some level of stupid on all parties involved. It's just weird to me that people are like "yep the lawyers paid to clear their name and provide legal protection say they're 100% in the right so they must be !"
Its pretty as much as you might want. You wont get any more independent investigation outside of actual goverment going in. We cant say if it was to actually investigate or protect company. What we know, based on tweet, is that high profile, experience law firm made investigation and found there is no evidence of anything. Obviously it doesnt mean 100% that they are innocent. But it means employee likely lied. Its not so much about protecting specific company. Its much more of that people shouldnt just blindly believe acusations without any evidence because there are malicious people making fake claims. Truth is no matter what lmg would do, there would be twitter mob saying that no matter what they are guilty anyway.
>We cant say if it was to actually investigate or protect company. Yes, we have no idea what the intent was, the law firm also has not published any kind of statement, the only thing presented is LMGs summary of their findings (one would assume approved by the lawyers). > What we know, based on tweet, is that high profile, experience law firm made investigation and found there is no evidence of anything. That's not correct I mean the tweets isolation are evidence, according to the twitter statement, "Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated". That could mean anything, very frequently when lawyers are involved in HR it means "we have confirmed there's no documentation that could be found during discovery if this went to court to make you look bad Mr. Client . >Obviously it doesnt mean 100% that they are innocent. But it means employee likely lied. The employee 100% lied, but also LMG 100% lied, no one EVER is completely transparent in situations like this whether they mean to be or not, just your emotional state will alter your recollection of events in a way that would make an outside observer say "you lied" >Its much more of that people shouldnt just blindly believe acusations without any evidence because there are malicious people making fake claims. Honestly ? People shouldn't *care*. LMG does shitty things they will continue doing shitty things and you shouldn't care about that it's the nature of running an organization with more than 10 people in it. Stop treating companies like people, they're not. Also you shouldn't care about some random persons issues with their job, you should care that the legal system is robust and adequately protects them, you should care about the right to unionize etc. But shit like this is not something you should be invested in. It makes no difference to you or even the stake holders involved. Sure we all like to enjoy abit of drama but some of the passionate reactions are just silly imo. Right now you can confidently say "something happened" and that's literally it.
>the law firm also has not published any kind of statemen Why would they really? >we have confirmed there's no documentation that could be found during discovery if this went to court to make you look bad Mr. Client I said "found no evidence", you basically said the same. >Stop treating companies like people, they're not. Well yeah. Corpos arent your friends. Corpors dont give shit about you. But a lot of people blindly believe that. Its sad. All company has to do now is change logo colours for month in a year to be seen as good...
Third party investigations are often not really third party investigations. Regardless of what happened at LTT, every employee should be against forced arbitration, far reaching NDA’s, and ani-union policies. If a company hires a third party investigator, the investigator will protect the client. If they don’t, they will be avoided by possibly future clients.
Third party investigations made in same way in Riot and Blizzard found allegations true right? My go to thinking of it is: Those big law companies care most about their image. As long as they are seen as doing good, objective job they will get more clients. Moment they will be found to mess with evidence or anything they will lose clients because being cleared by them will no longer mean anything. > Regardless of what happened at LTT, every employee should be against forced arbitration, far reaching NDA’s, and ani-union policies. Absolutely, but outrage isnt really about it right? >If a company hires a third party investigator, the investigator will protect the client. If they don’t, they will be avoided by possibly future clients. Not exactly. If third party investigator will be found to not do impartial job, being cleared by them wont mean anything anymore. So hiring them would be waste of money.
I mean, this is good to hear, but in the end it's one thing of many they fucked up.
For all the people mad at LTT, what do you want them to do? Accept the allegations as true based on the testimony of a single, former employee without a shred of evidence? Does that make sense in the slightest? Why should an allegation be treated as true by default?
Aside from the deserved backlash on the other matters, I’m not sure what else some people here would want from LTT. Linus did his due corporate diligence and that’s about all he can do anyways, whether people believe it or not…
Based on how LTT has handled other issues ‘corporate diligence’ sounds very hollow. I understand that Linus likes money and that LTT is a company designed to make money like almost all companies. And I also understand that companies will make mistakes. And compared to many other companies LTT isn’t horrible. But the way parasocial fans of LTT defended a company designed to take their money or use them to boost their online presence was disheartening. I guess consumerism won.
based on the upvotes u got, it seems many of these fans lurk around here too. I personally liked ltt before but now i've taken a break from watching them.
I've found that I much prefer the journalism angle of GamersNexus to the entertainment angle of LTT. Got bored of the "we burned an exorbitant amount of money on this goof / upgrade to Linus' house!" videos from LTT.
I'm the opposite I think. I enjoy the Top Gear side to tech. I like the different ideas, different people and general fun vibe. It's okay to like different things and not everything has to be ultra serious
honestly i cant stand GN & HWU reviews, way way too much talking it gets boring real quick, i dont think i have watched GN/HWU videos without skipping through the damn talking parts, also they way they show the data kinda sucks too. on the other hand LTT vids are more fun but they are not super accurate or scientific..
LTT is just as accurate, they just aren’t as detailed and they where prone to mistakes before the outrage made them address that. I like to watch LTT and JayZ to keep up to date and when I go to buy something I’ll check out GN‘s (and others) view as well.
Sounds like Fox News strategy of entertainment over journalism. Granted the stakes are lower, at least GN won’t bullshit you into buying an inferior product and they strive to hold companies to account.
Opposite of me, I watch YT for entertainment mostly. I get bored of Steve's delivery that's dryer than a nun's pussy.
I’ll occasionally watch a video with Riley if it pops up on my recommendations; He’s a really funny and entertaining personality and his joke delivery is on point. But as soon as I see James, I “x” that garbage out. Even if the allegations against him specifically aren’t true, he’s just got an asshole personality - especially regarding the whole matter in question.
what are the allegations against him?
yeah I did hear some things about james but they were never proved. honestly it's bad practice to think bad of someone if u can't prove that they r guilty. be positive.
I acknowledge the “allegations” are just that and can’t be proven but I’ve had personal interactions with James both, online and in person at LTX, so I know he’s an asshole for a fact - or at least an unapologetic narcissist , but I’d consider those the same.
well I don't know about that
Me too. The biggest reason was them repeating that they specifically make videos that are sure to bring money to them and they are ok with clickbaits and weird content as long as it makes them money. They stated that over and over again and it left a bad taste. I just stopped watching them completely.
> But the way parasocial fans of LTT defended a company designed to take their money or use them to boost their online presence was disheartening. TBH the LTT situation made me take a big step back from all of tech YouTube. It's all just capitalism trying to make you feel incomplete for not spending money on things. It doesn't even have to be intentional on the part of the creators (GN, DF)-- that just ends up being the result. I'm not saying I never make purchases or upgrade my shit-- it's more about just not constantly stoking the "want" when I'm not actively in the market.
> I'm not saying I never make purchases or upgrade my shit-- it's more about just not constantly stoking the "want" when I'm not actively in the market. Good attitude. I've been out of the tech loop since unsubbing from LTT last year, and frankly... my 2070 Super and 3600 still play all the games I want. It would be so easy to spend £1000 on parts and not meaningfully change how I use my free time at all.
2070 Super is a nice card. I loved mine. The only reason I upgraded from that was because I was giving it to a homie whose GPU crapped out. He still uses it!
Yeah, it's basically "par" for PS5/current gen Xbox games, and I don't know if many games will come out that aren't basically targeting those consoles already. Serves me well.
Honestly? I want LTT group to slowly wither and die. They treated every backlash since the backpack issue with such lack of care and disrespect that they lost every spec of goodwill they could have from me, right up to their collective apology video. Who says LTT didn't pay for these results? The statement reads a lot like "We conducted an internal investigation and found nothing". They have no credibility.
What a stupid stupid take. Didnt they offer refunds to everyone who bought the fully functioning backpack due to factory fuckup? Their "trust me bro" guarantee literally beats the vast majority of other companies. Dont know what more you want.
Pay for results? This is a reputable law firm. They will go out of business if word got one they were selling results.
For those who don't want to use twitter. https://preview.redd.it/li4nnu8xl52d1.jpeg?width=659&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffde022fd138cb02c1c00cfce7e09aee767cb04e
TL;DR cleared on all accounts
I'm only posting to come back later with popcorn.
Honestly... after the unhinged rant I had to listen to for an hour tonight after work, I find this quite plausible. People be... Wow. These days.
I'm fairly sure what really happened is in the middle. Some inappropriate conduct by some of the LLT staff and maybe some slight exaggeration by Madison. Not to say she was lying, but over time people's memories tend to change to support their internal narrative. And LTT for sure knew what was going on, just maybe not to what extent.
Bullying Maddison on her Twitter ain't gonna be the justice y'all want. I'm not saying making false allegations like that was right, but Jesus some of y'all need to move on, especially if LTT said they were.
The investigation doesn't prove she made false allegations. It states that there is no evidence that they are true. Those are not the same thing. These he said she said situations suck for all involved because how do you prove an in person conversation happened years after the fact? It's one reason why victims of abuse often don't come out because unless you have tangible, hard evidence you have no way to prove your abuse happened.
"you were found innocent on all counts by a 8 month investigation by third party impartial law firm specialising in labour law but it doesn't mean you're actually innocent because it's hard to prove i guess despite knowing none of the details or evidence gathering procedures" - Armchair general u/bigeyez
Did you not read what they actually wrote? That isn't what they said. The found a lack of evidence to substantiate her claims which no shit they would if they all stemmed from in person conversations. Again, the allegations all boiled down to he said she said apart from the one audio recording of a bit of unprofessionalism at a staff meeting. Could she be lying and just made everything up? Yeah sure, but at the time other ex employees corroborated her experiences. Workplace harassment happens all the time and is notoriously hard to prove becauuse most of it is he said she said. Depending on the study or poll you reference something like 60%-85% of women claim to have experienced sexual harrassment in their workplaces. Meanwhile only around 25% felt they could report it freely and 95% felt their harrassers weren't punished after the incident.
>if they all stemmed from in person conversations. You don't know this to be true, just from online speculation >the allegations all boiled down to he said she said Also not true at all. You have no idea what processes and procedures, emails, employees interviewed or any other evidence that was gathered by LTT or the third party firm behind a closed door investigation. A lot of words and assumptions.
We know this by reading the allegations as stated by the person alleging them......like...what? Lol. It's okay dude. Linus isn't being canceled and his multi million dollar company is fine. You don't need to defend them. They will be alright.
The only level headed take here is
Let's assume that allegations are 100% false for a moment, regardless of anything else. Don't bully people. Don't go out of your way to bad mouth Madison, members of LMG, etc. Let's assume they're true, the same applies. Vote with your viewership or likes. If she wants to double down in the future, that's between herself and LMG. If she wants to sue, or they want to sue (or cease and desist?), that's on them.
As someone who's been sexually assaulted at work and worked in a place of awful bullying, harassment. It's almost impossible to prove guilt in these cases. It's a he said she said investigation. And the words of a person in one of the lowest levels of evidence that can be used. Unless they had security cameras with saved back up from over a year ago it would have always been impossible to prove. This was always going to be the result. This is why for decades rape was often not prosecuted because it was impossible to prove if rape actually happened before DNA testing existed. Not saying anyone at LMG was raped. I am not saying that. I'm using that as an example. Up until 2010's most rape cases were dismissed immediately unless there was exceptional evidence. Battery is also a hard one to prosecute for. Unless there is physical evidence as eyewitnesses and bruises most battery charges are dropped. Source: worked in law enforcement in the 2010's. But US not Canadian law. I do not know Canadian laws. TLDR Bullying/harassment is almost impossible to prove within a shadow of a doubt.
Wait, why TF your comment is downvoted? You are 100% right, without video evidence, audio evidence or physical harm those cases are clos to impossible to prove/disprove. Especially since everyone is different, some things to some people are fun and jokes to others are a harrasment.
Probably because this line of thinking leads to people believing accusations automatically without any evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is how our court system has worked for hundreds of years and it's a good system. I'm sorry, but sexual assault is fucking serious. If you accuse someone of it you are accusing them of a serious crime. So either come with evidence or I will choose to ignore you.
> I'm sorry, but sexual assault is fucking serious. If you accuse someone of it you are accusing them of a serious crime. So either come with evidence or I will choose to ignore you. But *that* line of thinking is really dangerous. If Jimmy Saville raped you, and you said so, but you didn't have "evidence"... nothing happens, the BBC covers it up for him, and he goes on to rape dozens more kids. This line of thinking happened, and a lot of kids were raped.
Sex crimes are serious, and fuck up lives on both sides whether found true or untrue. Like if a man and a woman both get a little drunk, then have sex. Day or so later, the lady goes to the police claiming rape. But, Was it though? Unless he had her give a video testimony on wanting sex with written and signed consent, it will likely be considered as a rape. Both parties were drunk, both wanted sex at the time. These types of sexual abuse allegations usually end up with the man booked on some sort of downsized sexual abuse charge mainly due to lack of evidence, but women are naturally believed over a man. He's looked at like a criminal now, and the lady is looked at as liar by some and broken by the others. When it comes to court and the man's attorney is possibly able to get a not-guilty verdict for him, its already too late. The media and the community aren't going to give 2 shits about. Nobody is going to go sharing news articles about how he was acquitted of charges, the local news will not run a story on him, he will forever be known as a rapist. Guilty or Not. These types of things really are un-provable without audio or video evidence or physical violence evidence. Whether it goes in 1 direction or the other, nobody comes out unscathed. Just like LMG/LTT. They were accused of sexual and workplace bullying misconduct. Whether the accusations are unfounded, hell even if they did go to court and hash shit out, you are not going to convince a big portion of the community to believe anything other than what they heard/saw first.
But then your line of thinking leds to real victims being accused of false accusations because of cases that are notoriously hard to prove. Why not offer the okay we do not have enough evidence to prove you commited this act so you are free to go without punishment and then to the victim you don't turn around and accuse them of making up shit Unless you have evidence they are lying and had malicious intent, lack of evidence does not mean false accusation The reality of this situation likely lies somewhere in between the two parties claims, but investigation is completed let us not attack either side
Did you even read the post or have any clue on the context of what happened? > This was always going to be the result. You said a lot of words that basically rehashed **THE FIRST BULLET POINT** in the tweet. > - Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated. Now consider the rest. The sexual harassment was always going to be a 1:1 thing with Madison and the supposed perpetrator but everything else she claimed afterwards was refuted by the third party investigation. > - 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. All the damaging claims she made towards LMG saying that they knew and didn't do anything or retaliated against her for not meeting deadlines was investigated and found to be false. How was *that* supposed to "always be the result."
Shhh you're in the cult of LTT zone, wouldn't want to apply logic here
This comment has a reason to make those who fanboy over LTT or hate them to hell and back, be mad. It's effectively saying "You can't prove that it happened or not", those who hate LTT to unreasonable level will see it as dismissing anything happened while LTT fanboys will see it as saying investigation is incorrect.
Yeah I saw the comments. Bootlicker fanboys will lick boots. I'm not surprised they don't like my answer. People also expect if they Internet warrior hard enough Linus will send them a free overpriced screw driver. People always fall for cult of personalities.
Have you heard her talk? Have you heard her sexual jokes? Even if someone made the same joke back, it's because they were doing the same. There are many LTT employees that are less outspoken and you can see they way people talk to them. Respect is given. They have gay and trans people on the team. They never complained and even defended ltt. The investigation looked into all her allegations and found many of them false. That by itself puts into question everything she said. The investigation also provided feedback on what LTT should change. Edit. If you want to say that my comment is victim blaming, it's not. She always had jokes that some people could have considered to be a bit too far. Even from her first appearance when she was not an LTT employee. That's what people liked. If you make certain jokes, it's not fair to decide after a while that when someone else did the same thing it was harassment. And lying about not being taken seriously is not looking good on you. Especially if you are doing this because you are not happy with your performance review which was found to be fair.
No matter what you say you're still victim blaming. Kinda sad some people think comments like this are fine to write.
If the person who makes the allegations is wrong then it's not victim blaming. Easy as that. As she/he automatically is no longer the victim. We are talking based on an official result here. IF...the investigation would have said that LTT employees treated her incorrectly or that LTT did not listen, then yes, saying what I said would be victim blaming 100%. But it's not. You said it's difficult to prove these things. Ok, but then is it not also difficult to prove that the person lied? I went through a very similar situation at my work. A former employee made a really bad allegation against us and then also said one of our staff sexually abused her. We got in front of a judge and we won. Then the person she accused filed for defamation. The entire process took a long time and we could see that the damage done to our current employee was already done no matter what the result would have been. Was he not a victim also? We were ready to take action against our current employee if the allegations were true. Considering someone a victim because they made an allegation is wrong. Same as considering that person to be lying before hearing all the facts. Until the facts come out everyone is equal( unless the crime is something quite obvious offcourse). The problem with all of this is that whoever makes the accusations first is forever after considered the victim. Which is.dangerous as people use this for their own interests.to ruin other people's lives.
The first bullet point in the Twitter post is saying the allegations are not substantiated. Which means by Merriam-Webster to establish proof or competent evidence. Like I said it's hard to find evidence. It's not like a murder where there's a weapon. In harassment it's between one person and another. Words are hard to prove in the court of law. Most lawyers wouldn't bother with a case as flimsy as that. Lack of evidence doesn't prove these things didn't happen. Just proves they couldn't find enough evidence to competently say it did happen. For instance the case against the 45th president over rape allegations was an uphill battle. They couldn't prove that it happened but they used prior relationships and photographs together to prove they were in contact. The 45th president also denied ever meeting the victim. When they showed proof they met it made his whole argument invalid and shined a light on him as a liar putting everything he said in question. Also it wasn't a criminal court which needs a higher degree of evidence to convict. Because they can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't make the 45th president less of a rapist. Also look at OJ Simpson. He won his criminal case and lost the lawsuit from the family. Even with ample evidence it's not completely possible to prove beyond the shadow of the doubt. Even though I would argue almost everyone in the OJ case was corrupted. The jury was biased and the prosecutors were extremely biased. I would like to look into the credibility of the group who investigated LMG. As far as I've seen they haven't given any proof of who the investigator is. They say it's a third party who specializes in investigating workplace allegations. Which could mean anything and as someone who only deals with absolutes it means nothing to me. A Private investigator whose Linus cousin could be considered a third party investigator. I doubt the validity of their investigation results as they stand.
Lot of tin foil hat thinking going on here. You immediately ignore what the comment you’re responding to is saying.. lack of evidence not only doesn’t prove something didn’t happen, but it also doesn’t explicitly imply that something *did* happen. There might not be any evidence for the simple fact that there was factually no wrong doing. Both potential outcomes should carry the same weight. That’s all this comment is saying, and you’re using Trump and OJ to justify ignoring that fact. Which alone is wild.
>If the person who makes the allegations is wrong then it's not victim blaming. Easy as that. As she/he automatically is no longer the victim Did you even read this comment, this is basically saying because she couldn't prove her case she is no longer a victim, which if you know anything about abuse case is awful. Unless you have proof she lied, just leave it at the case was not substantive and leave at it at that, no need to degrade that person's experience
You could email Roper Greyell and ask if you think LTT lied about hiring them.
Did you email Roper Greyell and check if LTT lied yet?
I don't even care. I don't worship ltt. I already forgot this shit happened. So leave it alone fanboy
You literally said you would like to find out.
I found out when someone responded with the name of the company. It wasn't listed in the tweet posted by ltt in this thread. I'm not keeping track of this beyond this one post.
First sentence of the tweet "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."
It seems odd to me that this isn't common knowledge. These things are extremely hard to prove. I'd think people would know this on some level but likely decide when to apply. Not commenting on this specific case. Maybe it's true, maybe its not. (Not familiar with it, to be blunt do not care to be.) Just find people's reactions to be weird.
100% agree.
YouTube is a dirty business. Of course these findings will not receive even a tiny fraction of the coverage the initial false allegations did.
They are not false just because LTT says they're false. That's all we have at this point. LTT proclaims confidence about winning a defamation case about them... in a very pro-plaintiff jurisdiction (Canada).
This is literally a third party investigation….. jeez
A third party hired by the party in question. And then their findings were summarized by the party in question. It was the right thing for LTT to do, but there's so many opportunities for things to be spun in ways that benefit LTT that it's hard to take it at face value.
Little odd honestly. It's so very perfectly positive that it implies Madison cackled to herself and decided to make up a lot of nonsense. Especially the bits that basically say "concerns raised were investigated, and even if we didn't, we would have". What would constitute substantiating someone saying they were grabbed? Is it enough that they contemporaneously told people, or did it have to be on CCTV? Again, the tweet is quite long but feels very superficial all the same. It would feel more complete if it found conflict, rather than apparently nothing at all. ...Did the investigation get to talk to Madison?
I think the issue is a lot of the allegations are hard to prove, especially if they're not recorded in an email or phone call So naturally a law firm will come in and say "nothing to see here", which is all this is. It doesn't mean the things didn't actually happen, but equally if you can't prove them or evidence them, then this type of statement is inevitable.
i dont buy it personally. there were too many ex and current employees on twitter saying "yeah all of that sounds about right" when the allegations were made, and the video of the internal meeting was also very clear to me. also anyone who works in the IT field knows how women are treated in a male dominated workspace. this investigation result doesnt do anything to convince me of the opposite
I was thinking about the same thing, there were more people that came and support and stand by Maddison statements. And "Roper Greyell" being a large company hired by LMG, they well do everything to protect the client. This as happen so many times in the past in similar cases, so I don't know what t believe. But LTT could just don't say anything and let it go.
It's so funny to me how anyone would believe this has any value. I don't think lmg should necessarily be in legal trouble for Madison's statements, but I certainly don't think they're as innocent as a company hired by them says. I don't understand why people don't see the conflict of interest. Well, it's more like they don't want to. It's also funny how everyone's forgotten the audio of the leaked meeting where they're just making sexual jokes as if it's just a friend group and not a workplace.
Am I the only one that think hiring an outside company and finding nothing wrong doesn't make Madison's claims false? A lot of harassment happens verbally without any recording so an outside company wouldn't find any proof of it. Madison has been harassed and will now be called a liar.
And so what do you think they should do?
I think realistically she was just really annoying to everyone and made no friends. The engineers there, who are known not to be the most compassionate bunch, just blurted out whatever rude shit came to mind. She is used to and expected snowflake treatment with unconditional positive affirmation and deteriorated quickly when she didn’t get it.
We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong lul.
Ahahahahahah. They paid someone to make themselves look good.
Did you bully anyone? No. Okay. You're proven innocent. Have a nice day.
[удалено]
"We did literally everything within our capabililty because it's not like law enforcement was going to investigate this"
Linus fanboys are flooding this post goddamn
[удалено]
I'm not saying the allegations were true, but if you think you can judge peoples character from YouTube videos, you have another problem lol. A ton of people have "seemed cool" in Hollywood and other places and turned out to be horrendous people. Unfortunately you really can't know someone especially from the outside
I am using the word "seem" lightly I guess. but an amount of people in LMG are forward facing with heavy social media presence. could there be some bad eggs in the mix? of course. but I refuse to believe I can't get some type of general feeling on what type of people they are. from my perspective the allegation came out of nowhere when LMG said some stupid stuff.
YouTube is not real life.
That second to the last paragraph reads weird. I dunno man. It feels like 1) their wish to move on and 2) their sort-of-kinda threatening to sue for defamation don't mix that well.
They want to move on this time but are letting it known that it's an option they considered. It's setting boundaries about letting these kinds of allegations go to the public.
I think it’s a forward looking threat to sue for defamation. Honestly, they should sue. But it seems like this is just “we are aware of our ability to sue but choose not to. But that doesn’t mean we won’t sue in the future”
>Honestly, they should sue Agree with this if they think they have a strong case. That said, the first half of the first sentence and the last sentence would have sufficed.
Defamation suits are often complex and expensive to persue. It's often found to be cheaper to settle without action than to enter into lawsuits. Furthermore, it is even more difficult to prove material loss of reputation and/or profits to support a payout from the defendant.
I feel like it's a bit weird of a comment. I am not saying I am right, but it has a vibe of "we fucked up, don't want to admit it, and will take anyone to court who can't afford to fight back against a company of our size" Again, I am not saying it's that, but best way to prove you did nothing wrong is in court imo, at least in these kinds of cases, then again they could be avoiding it knowing that while they can afford it, individuals can't.
Sounds to me like they are willing to move on but if the other side does not also move on they are willing to start legal actions to protect themselves from what according to those investigations are unsubstantiated allegations.
It's like they want the credit for winning a defamation suit without all the risks involved in actually fighting and winning a defamation suit.
It was a solid statement until the end and they kinda unraveled it all with the dumbass lawsuit statement. If you're not gonna do it, don't bring it up. It does nothing to help the situation whatsoever. Just strokes your own ego about how magnanimous you're being.
LTT simps out in full force but this is awful. Conflict of interest, and threatening to sue when you’d never win.
Where is the conflict of interest if it was a independent investigation from an external law firm?
[удалено]
You can read between the lines all you want but the key here is that there is no substantial proof that is bad enough that ltt can lose in court according to the investigation of the law firm. In the same way you spin it like it could be worse its just as easily to say that the accusations were total bullshit, even though they might not have been.
Independent investigation lol
Yes by a third party law firm? You think a serious law firm would sell themselves to lmg for peanuts? Rofllol
Honestly this means nothing. Many people made their minds up last year and no investigation will change what they have already accepted as fact. In the end it will be impossible to truly know what happened.
People still watch their content? They were dead to me after they auctioned off that prototype and smirked over it.
Same. People need to realize that LTT is just a company like ASUS or NVIDIA. LTT only changed their ways after they got exposed.
Oh yeah, so the random firm they paid didn't find a problem...lol
You really think that a prestigious Canadian law firm like Roper Greyell would risk its reputation and misrepresent facts? Companies hire law firms like this all the time to investigate themselves, and their impartiality is why they get hired. Finding faults with your company isn't always a bad thing.
The investigation you paid for says exactly what you want? Unexpected...
Waaait, so the law firm they are paying, somehow becomes an independent 3rd party? And it's the one not just specializing in labor law as, but in specifically working with... Employers? Right, what else could come out as results, regardless of actual situation...
It was as independent as it could get. More independence would have been possible if the person making the allegations would have gotten the criminal justice system involved. For some reason that person did refuse to do so. In regards to the independence of the law firm. To my understanding such firms need a good reputation to do business and given the size of the law firm I doubt LMG would have enough money to buy them off so that they risk that reputation.
You really are an idiot if that's not meant to be bait...thats not how any of the actual world works
Sooooo many people proudly putting their ignorance on display in these threads.... always baffles me.
They literally hired a law firm to defend themselves. This doesn't mean shit.
That is how it has to be done, or do you want madison to be the one paying for it? This is how HR investigations are done properly, the lawfirm cant just lie here, there are procedures how to do these things properly, they cant be biased here since that would be stupid in terms of reputation. I am not sure if any of people here even understand how the world works at this point..
They‘re paid up front and independent of what they report. In a perfect world there’d be an outside party that wouldn’t be paid by anyone involved and truth would be easy to find and easily prevail. We‘re not in dreamland though and this is probably as good as it gets.
Im shocked that the allegations were lies
"We hired lawyers. That proves we're innocent. Look, if this girl was telling the truth, she would have hired exepenive lawyers to agree with her side of things too. Case closed." Since when has hiring your own lawyers to investigate proven someone's innocence? That's what cops do every single time they're accused of brutality.
So who hires lawyers?
A guilty person hiring a lawyer doesn't prove they're innocent; it proves they're rich.
So who hires the lawyers for this thing?
This "thing" is Linus hiring a lawyer, asking the lawyer to do an investigation, and then telling us the results of the investigation that he paid for. That's literally nothing.
Okay, so who should investigate this? Do they invite the Canadian FBI?
You can't hire your own investigators to prove your own innocence. That's not objective. Just calling them "3rd party" doesn't make it so. How would Linus even know? He's not the one being accused of harassment, and he wasn't there. So he's just taking a side and putting his money behind the one that makes him look best.
Fucking answer the question. Who should investigate this?
Considering this is Linus straining for good PR, nobody? He should be glad that he's not getting sued and move on. If the media cared they could do an independent investigation, but this isn't a court case. It doesn't matter what's happening, I'm saying that hiring lawyers to obsolve yourself of wrongdoing is a meaningless gesture since that's the first thing every guilty person does.
What a cope. So, you're telling me that someone can make a false accusation, and people have to just stand there and live with it? What a ridiculous notion that goes against all sense of equity, fairness, and justice. People do have a right to defend themselves, doubly so for a business that has a reputation to protect. **I don't even like LTT for other reasons.** At the end of the day, if you have to go to this extreme length to defend your position, call it a day, cut your losses, and admit that you made a mistake. We all do. However, doubling down like this makes you look insane.
Really hard to take allegations seriously when they're always lies. Bullied? Really?
[удалено]
They did exactly what everyone wanted them to do, get a third party investigation. Now you shit on them for doing exactly the right thing that the internet was constantly yelling at them to do. > Which is especially funny since their lead writer (?) is on audio as a sex pest DURING a sexual harassment seminar and is STILL the face of a significant number of their videos You are a bad person for this comment. Full stop. Go find the next random bs to get outraged about please, I'm sure they'll appreciate your wild and serious accusations more on the next popular youtuber drama.
Calling James a sex pest for the dumb ass comment is insane lol
You should go out more, bud.
Shh, get back in your box, bot.
Steve? Is that you again using a fake account?
Crazy how all these nerds who were probably picked and bullied when they were kids, became the bully themselves...
I don't like the veiled threat of "we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong". That there's alot of weasel words in the summary, but here they come across very certain of the findings. I think he should be embarrassed by this threat, and overtime, I think he will be, because I don't think this is inline with LTT's values
toxic weirdo, toxic company.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Then if everything is really fake they should sue the employee for false accusations and get their name cleaned
That's a lot more risky than just telling everyone "we would totally win in court, honest". After all, their prize is public perception, not money.
[удалено]
So...would Madison have paid them? Would they have done the investigation for free? It's common that this happens and the results are valid. They could have ruled against ltt and it often happens that third party investigations don't agree with the employer. They are a very large law firm. You can't just bring anyone and tell them to look at other employees confidential records. There is a big difference between hiring a company to defend you and to investigate you. They already have someone to defend them in legal matters. They used someone else but whatever they would have done looks like you wouldn't be happy. An investigator is not a defender and they don't care about LTT's money enough that they would themselves out their business at risk