From the link:

"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." -LTT

  • The entire situation and Linus’s online persona changes over the years has left a seriously sour taste in my mouth tbh. In recent years Luke has had to rein Linus in on the WAN show on a much more frequent basis too.

    And then that whole issue where LMG was knowingly releasing inaccurate videos, not adequately covering products, and the whole Billet Labs situation.

    For LTT to regain my interest as an ex viewer, there need to be some serious visible changes made. Having the new dedicated CEO is good, but Linus’s attitude and its impact on the workplace culture & public perception is not great IMO. While he’s the main reason the channel was successful, it’s probably time he let the hosts take the wheel. Jake has lots of potential, as well as some of the other usual faces on Short Circuit.

    If I feel a desire for tech entertainment nowadays I just watch j2c or one of the many other smaller channels out there, then GN for general news and analysis

    • Dagnet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I really liked when the channel was smaller and they did simple yet entertaining stuff like the mineral oil pc or the pc building competition with a limited budget (forgot how they named it). After a while it seemed most videos were about crazy setups that were all super expensive, like, cool you can run 16 monitors and peripherals off a single machine but who really cares? I stopped watching then.

      No idea what they have for content nowadays but I’m not sure anything could bring me back. I would say though, if they completely stopped click bait thumbnails/video titles (hell, make a second channel just for that if needed) I would give them a chance again

      • TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nobody trying to make money on YouTube is going to stop click bait; its a necessary evil to get your videos fed by the algorithm. It sucks, but its here to stay until the algorithm starts punishing it.

            • Dagnet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s great news, if the content is good and the price is right, I would be willing to give it a shot

              • Footnote2669@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I just checked. It’s $5/month. I don’t see much clickbait, but you can check by yourself by registering (you don’t have to pay, but also you can’t really delete the account). Plus you get lots of exclusive content like the Labs progress, behind the scenes etc. I’d screenshot the videos tab but I’m on my phone and I can screenshot like two thumbnails max lol

  • t7tis@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Summery:

    • We paid someone to write a report for us.
    • We understand such a report doesn’t have any legal value.
    • Please just forget this.
  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Good to hear. I’d love to have the investigation firm say it independently too, but I can’t imagine they’d lie about that when the audit company could just correct them. Sounds like they took the right steps to take the claims seriously, and worked to fix the issues that were substantiated.

  • incompetentboob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I want to see the full report. They have cherry picked the positive point and added some small concessions to make it sound more credible.

    I doubt the actual report is as positive as this or if it is I have my doubts that staff were open and honest when interviewed because they didn’t want lawyers hearing about workplace bullying and sexual harassment they have committed.

  • LittleBobbyTables@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    The passive-aggressive bragging… this comes off as nonprofessional to me, like “we could sue the pants off this person if we wanted to”. Why does the public even need to hear this part in particular? It sounds like something that should be privately communicated to the alleged defamer, not the public. It’s a little odd in my opinion…

    Regardless, I am interested in seeing the full report and I’ll keep a close eye on this.

    • Kacarott@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I read it more as an answer to people who might “wish justice” to people making false accusations. LTT seem to me to be saying that the law is probably on their side, but that they are willingly choosing not to follow through.

      Had they not mentioned this, it might leave many people wondering?

      Just my take on it.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      On the other hand, without this statement the same public would speculate “they don’t sue, certainly because they are at fault and wouldn’t win” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯