Yup, unsubscribe after Gamers Nexus called em out. A lot of shit came to light and there still hasn’t been any update on the Madison situation. Finding out Yvonne was head of HR, Linus being anti-union, sexual harassment, etc. A lot of scummy stuff going on, and Linus turning into a rich out of touch douchebag instead of a regular douchebag.
Definitely agree that some of their talent should start there own channels.
I had seen a post here a few days ago where they hired a third party to go over the allegations that Madison made, and they were essentially cleared however long after, but were also told that they still need to work on reporting and hr stuff. Which to me indicates that there was probably no documentation made if they did happen, so it would be impossible to audit like two years later, because being ignored when she told someone about the sexual harassment was one of her complaints. However, maybe you trust a neutral third party because taking the side of the company every time means their reputation for neutrality would be worthless, which means their business is dead. But in LTT’s statement they made it clear that while they did believe there was enough in their report to justify a defamation case, they just want to leave it behind them. Great stuff to include in your statement /s.
Which to me indicates that there was probably no documentation made if they did happen, so it would be impossible to audit like two years later, because being ignored when she told someone about the sexual harassment was one of her complaints.
When a law firm does an internal investigation, it’s about judging the risk to the company if things were to go to court and not about if the events actually happened. So things like a lack of documentation is exactly what they are looking for. By using someone that can be considered to be a neutral third party, they can get the accuser to divulge whatever evidence they also have. You’re not lying, the firm isn’t there to make you look innocent, but you are clipping the leverage of the accusing party.
So, if the accuser says that they have a journal, or witnesses, or recordings, then you as a corporation then act to stop them from pressing forward. You fire someone, you pay them out, you say “oh, if only I knew about this we would’ve done something sooner”, etc. This generally costs less than actual court and what would be ruled against you.
If the accuser has nothing, and you also have nothing that would shake loose in an actual investigation for your requirement to provide a safe workplace, then you can say things like “look, we paid someone to look into things, and it is looks like we’re all good. We’re going to put some policies in place to make sure that IF something like that every happens, that we can…”
It’s like a voir dire without the actual trial. If things go to trial, well, you already know what your defences are.
Yup, unsubscribe after Gamers Nexus called em out. A lot of shit came to light and there still hasn’t been any update on the Madison situation. Finding out Yvonne was head of HR, Linus being anti-union, sexual harassment, etc. A lot of scummy stuff going on, and Linus turning into a rich out of touch douchebag instead of a regular douchebag.
Definitely agree that some of their talent should start there own channels.
I had seen a post here a few days ago where they hired a third party to go over the allegations that Madison made, and they were essentially cleared however long after, but were also told that they still need to work on reporting and hr stuff. Which to me indicates that there was probably no documentation made if they did happen, so it would be impossible to audit like two years later, because being ignored when she told someone about the sexual harassment was one of her complaints. However, maybe you trust a neutral third party because taking the side of the company every time means their reputation for neutrality would be worthless, which means their business is dead. But in LTT’s statement they made it clear that while they did believe there was enough in their report to justify a defamation case, they just want to leave it behind them. Great stuff to include in your statement /s.
When a law firm does an internal investigation, it’s about judging the risk to the company if things were to go to court and not about if the events actually happened. So things like a lack of documentation is exactly what they are looking for. By using someone that can be considered to be a neutral third party, they can get the accuser to divulge whatever evidence they also have. You’re not lying, the firm isn’t there to make you look innocent, but you are clipping the leverage of the accusing party.
So, if the accuser says that they have a journal, or witnesses, or recordings, then you as a corporation then act to stop them from pressing forward. You fire someone, you pay them out, you say “oh, if only I knew about this we would’ve done something sooner”, etc. This generally costs less than actual court and what would be ruled against you.
If the accuser has nothing, and you also have nothing that would shake loose in an actual investigation for your requirement to provide a safe workplace, then you can say things like “look, we paid someone to look into things, and it is looks like we’re all good. We’re going to put some policies in place to make sure that IF something like that every happens, that we can…”
It’s like a voir dire without the actual trial. If things go to trial, well, you already know what your defences are.
https://x.com/LinusTech/status/1793428629378208057?mx=2
‘We paid someone to clear ourselves and they found nothing wrong’ is my favorite business move.
deleted by creator