meme made by me using free libre open source software aka Gnu Image Manipulation Program (ak… aka GIMP) uwu
(Lemmy original meme fr)
meme made by me using free libre open source software aka Gnu Image Manipulation Program (ak… aka GIMP) uwu
(Lemmy original meme fr)
“ThE aLlEgAtIoNs WeRe PrOvEn To Be FaLsE By aN iNdEPeNdEnT tHiRd-PaRtY iNvEsTiGaTiOn.”
How would someone better address a situation like that?
Open up to some third party coming in and publicly investigate and share their findings. Wasn’t this entire investigation behind closed doors with LMG giving the final “Yeah they said we’re good” message?
If that’s the case, that’s like me being accused of a crime and hiring my own prosecutor, judge, and jury in a closed court. No shit I’m gonna say I did nothing wrong lol.
Have you ever worked in a professional environment?
Random people have absolutely no right to see the details of that report.
Shit - I work in the public sector where people can demand to see the co tents of my phone, but there are classes of information we do not share. Specifically, we don’t share details regarding active litigation, property negotiation, or personnel matters.
Ah yes. “Someone said she was harassed. Let’s post all of the investigation details publicly.”
That will go well. There’s zero chance that it could backfire and turn a victim into a target, or suppress future victims from speaking out because the last person to do so got doxxed /s
Situations like this need to be handled with discretion so that you can avoid re-victimizing anyone who was wronged. Even if the original victim was found to be crying wolf, there’s still a victim somewhere who was wronged; The person/people they accused, for instance.
Okay, fair. When I said public, I didn’t mean to say publicly share every single detail. Obviously, there needs to be discretion. That said, the fact that all flow of information was via LMG themselves means there’s absolutely zero chance they will say there is any wrongdoing.
Another way to look at it is that they already had a media company with an established viewer base and reach, and they used it to broadcast the investigation details as widely as possible while still maintaining privacy for everyone involved. What would you have them do, get the investigation company to post the “all clear” message somewhere that nobody will ever see it? They already had a soapbox, so they used it; They likely didn’t see any need to reinvent the wheel when they already had a way to broadcast the message.
You can’t share that kind of stuff. There is a victim somewhere, if it’s the accuser/ accused being the victim or the accuser being a victim of their own behavior.
Good lord. what happened this time?
I think a group of people found a dead horse they like beating. They enjoy it, so they will keep going.
That he paid good money for.
Thats how that works no? Who should pay for it?
Preferably, these 3rd party investigations should be done by a regulated entity, chosen by a 3rd party that the business being investigated has no say in, with no contact between the chosen investigative party and the business being investigated until the investigation has started.
So yes, you are correct that LTT needs to be the ones to pay for the investigation, but they shouldn’t be allowed to know who they were paying until after the fact, and they certainly should not be allowed to choose who they paid.
Torvalds’s history of verbal abuse is well documented in public mailing list archives.
I can’t speak about whatever happened behind closed doors at LTT nor am I defending anything by LTT but Torvalds is not sunshine and rainbows either.
what did they do? im lost
A former LTT employee made claims of sexual harassment and poor working environment. LTT paid a third party to investigate those claims and unsurprisingly didn’t find evidence that supported those claims. A lot of LTT stans use this as “evidence” that the accuser was lying. Assuming that is clearly false logic, investigating yourself isn’t proof of innocence.
When you’re the size of LMG you don’t hire investigative law firms for PR; you do it for liability. The goal is to limit corporate liability by removing individuals likely to get you sued, and most importantly to distance leadership from it with plausible deniability. The firm also has its own reputation to consider, and wouldn’t let a client get away with materially misrepresenting their results.
I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest that a positive finding from an investigative firm is evidence to support their position that they, materially, did nothing wrong. The fact that no one was fired as a result of that investigation is a good sign externally, as it would open them up to more liability if they knew about it and did nothing.
Adding to this, at least publicly, they stated that regardless of the outcome, the situation highlighted changes that needed to be made within their organization. IIRC, they didn’t produce anything for bit while they “addressed the issues.” I recall a YT video of Linus explaining all that. Take it for what it’s worth.
Personally, I think it’s likely that something happened that offended a former employee. That thing may or may not have been a misunderstanding, but either way, the employee felt harassed. I can’t fault how LMG handled it. Any other company would’ve responded similarly. I’m not saying they did the “bare minimum.” I’m saying, to me, their response seemed reasonable.
Not being held legally liable ≠ Nothing happened
Afaik the report that was done was not made public. If one side paid for the investigation and controls all the info in said investigation then it can’t be used as proof of innocence.
Meaning what? What would the company doing the investigation do is if the claims that someone said:
Where true? How would one even prove that actually happened to them? The Investigation Company surely signed an NDA and had no legal ability to release any info found in says investigation right? If they started releasing info that accusations where in fact true they would lose all their business immediately right?