750
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kftX@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

The end result will likely be something like: "We have investigated ourselves and found that we are blameless of any wrongdoing". Which is usually how these things end up.

Also, weird to not see them saying they'll reach out to Madison to get the story from her, but I guess that might be one of those obvious things so not mentioned. I hope.

[-] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 62 points 1 year ago

It being a third-party investigator means they aren't "investigating themselves."

Yeah I think they have dug themselves in deep shit and this will not go away until they make everything public and take action. And Linus as well as Terren Tong know this.

[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

It means they're hiring someone. What will matter is which type of firm they hire:

  1. Firm with a proven track record of being unbiased in their processes and conclusions.

  2. Firm with a track record of finding no fault, only low level scapegoats

  3. Unknown firm, likely the same result as option 2.

[-] kftX@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

My point is that when you are the one ordering an investigation on yourself, usualyl the results are bound to be highly skewed towards what you want.

I've seen my government recently do this in a pretty big corruption case that would have made heads roll, as well as a couple other private entities I can think of who have hired "outside investigators" to investigate themselves only to go like what I said.

I'm obviously open to being proven wrong in this case, but the track record of such things isn't very positive.

Sorry I wasn't very clear, I just didn't want to make my comment too big.

[-] newDayRocks@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Aside from ordering a third party investigator, how else can a company prove to itself and everyone that they are serious about corrective action?

You're essentially saying they are guilty of everything and no matter the findings which haven't even begun, there is a conspiracy. I don't see how that cynicism is productive.

[-] kftX@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My point is they shouldn't be the ones doing the auditing (or at least ordering it), it should be an outside source doing it (in this case, I guess a government entity? Or something independent from LMG anyhow).

I'll gladly admit to being a cynic, but that's because I've worked in similar work environments, quit for very similar reasons and saw nothing being done too. So it's a sore spot for me too. I can easily see my own bias in this situation.

In any case, we'll have to wait and see how it pans out. Hopefully for the best is what matters in the end.

[-] newDayRocks@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A third party isn't them though. I get what you are saying because LMG writes the check, but realistically that's the best anyone can do. Why would the government get involved? Specifically why would taxpayers pay to help rehabilitate a private company's reputation?

Private independent auditors are in every industry and a standard practice.

Oh, and as long as we're being cynical, let's say you got your wish and a government entity does the investigation. Odds are they would just contract it out to these same people. Same results, only everyone gets to charge more for their services.

[-] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 6 points 1 year ago

Issue is they're trying to investigate something from more than two years ago. They're unlikely to find anything at all in the first place.

[-] kftX@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That's also very true, absolutely not gonna disagree there.

In any case, all we can do is speculate, we will see the end result when it eventually comes out. As long as this brings positive change to LMG as a whole, that'll be good.

I know it won't matter overall, but I won't see the change since I've unsubbed to everything LMG related myself (a long time coming, honestly) but I really do wish them all the best.

[-] Saneless@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah it'll be "negative" but generic

"We've found that we were set up in a way for people to have suboptimal experiences. We thought we had a good culture and a program to minimize harassment but we obviously let some of our employees down so we are hiring a new chief sensitivity officer to address these concerns and ensure that current and future employees feel welcome,. comfortable, and respected"

Or some shit. Basically a "yeah things got out of hand but since we're being scrutinized, we'll hire an adult to keep us in line, maybe"

[-] MrBusiness@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

It's like, c'mon Linus 'If my employees need a union, I have failed as a boss' Sebastian, you have failed as a boss and your employees need a union.

[-] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago

Other some youtuber should. Not LTT.

[-] CanofBeanz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

No a professional should, not a drama/attention farming YouTuber.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
750 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
1037 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS