Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
I'm going to copy and paste my comment from another post here:
If this is true this is bad. Like, really bad
I say "if" just because I don't really know what the facts are, I just know what some people are claiming
To be clear, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that, at the moment, it's just Madison saying these things did happen and Linus essentially saying they didn't
My question is if she had such a bad experience, why hasn't anyone else said anything, or at least put an anonymous negative review on Glassdoor or something? Did she just have a awful experience that was unusual, or is everyone/a large number of people treated like this? I don't think it's the second or it would've come out already and from more than one source (and the turnover is pretty low for LMG if I'm not mistaken, so that also doesn't make sense), but I don't really know. That's really the crux of the situation, is I just don't know. I'm glad they got an outside investigator though; hopefully that'll clear everything up
People don't speak up for many reasons. Retaliation is a big thing: if you speak up then your job there is toast whether or not you're still employed there. You still "have" to work with or around the people you're accusing, until and unless you leave. Have you ever had to work with someone who's abused you? It's... not fun.
If you need the money, you're kind've stuck: if you quit then you have to have a savings account to keep you afloat while you look for another job. While you're looking for another job, your accusations here can prevent you from getting another job. Whether or not you leave, you still have to deal with the fallout: investigations take time, especially your time. If you have to take time off of work (eg, to see an attorney or visit a court) then that time might not be paid -- can you afford to take that time off? Worse; you might even have to pay someone for that time (eg, an attorney). Can you afford that? That's especially true if your compensation barely meets your financial obligations such that you're not really able to put away savings. There's a term for that: wage slave. Those costs are partly why there's government agencies designed to help you.
Thoughts about cost is just the tip of the iceberg. Many don't realize that they're being abused. A lot of people don't realize that others might also be victims too. Some people trivialize it. Friends around you tell you that it's "normal" behavior or that it's normal for coworkers to "socialize" and banter, that they didn't mean anything about it. People start to second-guess themselves.
When's the last time your company gave you anti-harassment training? If it's been more than a year (or never) then you might want to speak up about it and ask for it to be provided. Or, reach out to your government agency and ask for some training guidance.
Glassdoor is notoriously business-friendly. It's fairly trivial for businesses to have reviews removed.
I knew speaking up publicly wasn't very likely for most for the reasons you talked about and I was more expecting anonymous complaints, maybe didn't phrase that part well
For the anonymous negative review, I didn't mean just Glassdoor, I meant in general we haven't really heard very much negative about working at LMG besides it's somewhat stressful because of the fast pace at which everything runs. If it was as bad for everyone as Madison claims it was for her (reiterating, not claiming it didn't happen, just we don't know anything definitively yet) then at least one other person in the 100+ person company would have contacted someone like the Verge or Coffeezilla or anyone else who does news/exposés. Even if most were trivializing it, there should be at least more than just Madison realizing it with how bad she was saying it was. Also, she talked about some of her coworkers apologizing to her for others' actions, so at least some of them realize that not everything is just "normal"
I've been at companies with 150+ employees where people didn't speak up in official complaints about perceived or observed issues. We'd all go to a bar after work and talk about things after a few drinks. I don't know how many things weren't mentioned at the bar and I certainly didn't go to every company social event. "Keep things in the family" was a strong sentiment. Were things mentioned online? I'm aware that we did end up with some very poor Glassdoor and Indeed reviews -- those were shared directly to me by former employees. But those eventually disappeared. So, after some time, generally nope.
Several people, including myself, would bottle up the problems and just decide to leave after the bottle filled. It's not healthy to keep that bottle full and it's a personal decision about whether to raise the concerns or find employment elsewhere.
I'm no saint. I've made mistakes and I've had some talkings-to about them, both at the bar and outside of it. I've learned from them. It's important for everyone to admit when they make mistakes and talk about what they've learned from them. It's part of the reason why anti-harassment is one of the things I'm passionate about.
So I'm speaking from third party (w.r.t. LMG) experience. So, back to the topic at hand.
Perhaps people did speak up about LMG but those complaints didn't weren't public or didn't gain public traction. For example, I remember some drama about Linus and Naomi Wu a few years ago. What came of that? Those events aren't (as far as I'm aware of) related to Madison Reeves. But honestly it doesn't matter except that, if true, it can set a pattern.
I don't think anyone should assume that people would have spoken up about issues prior to Madison. Even if someone did, Madison's statements deserve to be viewed on their own merit regardless of other people's statements. Now that the accusations are public, if they bring other statements public, then those can be viewed in their own light as well.
Perhaps there's someone from LMG who will provide a contrasting experience. That would be interesting. Even if that happens, quite honestly, the investigation should default to being private until and unless one party chooses to share more information.
I honestly and wholeheartedly agree with this. Anytime there's a problem of this nature it should be looked into and investigated. My main point is just, at this point, it's hard to definitively know the exact, full truth (again, just to be clear not saying it didn't).
Given how personal and private this investigation is, I wouldn't want the specific details to be released unless Madison/others who were hurt want to reveal their own details. However, I would hope whoever does the investigation would reveal simply if this is true or not and if so to what extent (like is everything Madison said 100% true, is most of it, is a little, or none of it)
Edit: Apparently the CEO said they will publish the findings of the external investigation, which is good. He seems like he wants to tell the truth, so that's good.
Keep it balanced. The investigation should only state what changes to the company are recommended as a result of the investigation. If staffing changes are recommended, then no statement of why. Further information is relevant only to the parties involved. Anything else can cause further problems.
I just found out the CEO said they will publish the findings of the external investigation, and I think they won't release anything that's personal unless the victim themselves wants it released as that would just make the situation worse (on top of just not being a nice thing to do)
This dropped a few hours ago, so let's wait a bit and see. Often times rot gets exposed in waves. One skeleton falls out of the closet and then a bunch of other skeletons follow.
Even if Madison is the only employee that ever experienced this (doubtful) that is already horrific. She isn't claiming that it was a single small incident that might have been a bad joke or a misinterpretation of some comment. It's a bunch of incidents, so not like one thing got blown way out of proportion.
Why has nobody else said anything before? There's tons of reasons why that might be the case. First, maybe people have and it has remained internal/supressed. Maybe other instances were more "mild" and the victims didn't feel the need to quit. Maybe the other victims were too frightened, felt they had too much to lose, were pressured more harshly.
I'm standing with Madison until proven otherwise. There have been plenty of hints of this sort of thing for a while, and like I said, scandals tend to come in waves. Nobody says anything for a long time until something bad enough happens that triggers the cascade of testimonies.
Best case scenario, LTT is a toxic workplace that overworks its employees, places profit and marketability over quality data/reviews, and is more and more in bed with corporate powers vs consumers.
Sad, I grew up with LTT through my tech journey, now bye-bye to yet another company/project that fell to the effects of capitalism and enshitification.
CEO said the external investigation's results will be made public, so I'll wait to make my opinions then. However, if it turns out they're true, then they'll lose a large part of their fanbase, including me.
I dunno, Linus recognized the fact he is not a good CEO and hired a replacement to fix that problem. If the investigation comes back that there were issues and the perpetrators are purged from the company (or at least severely sanctioned) then I'm willing to give Terran a chance to right the ship
Shoulda recognized that 10 years ago
10 years ago they were like 5 guys in a rental house. Completely different situation
I should clarify: if the allegations are true, then they will need to handle it well to convince me to stay. If they just do a mediocre job then I'll probably just dip
It's possible their turnover is low enough that a Glassdoor review would be easy to figure out the author, even if anonymous
Yup, I worked at a small-ish company (~50 employees) and it would be very easy to identify an anonymous post. ~100 employees isn't that much larger, so I'm guessing most people know each other there (see Dunbar's Number).
So I, for one, would probably hesitate to leave a negative review, especially in a social space like YouTube where you could potentially call in a collab to get a new channel up and going.
My current company is a few thousand, and my office is ~200 people (half on a separate floor), and I just don't know more than ~30. So there seems to be a point where there's enough people that I don't go out of my way to get to know others. But I'm guessing at LTT, most people in each building know each other because the company is small enough.
Very true
This reads like every rape apologist asking why the person didn't react like your idea of an "ideal victim".
To be clear I'm NOT saying that you would ever help create a permissive environment that passively encourages the type of behaviors described in her post, my question is just why you'd feel compelled to write 750 words of "I'm just asking" around your structural dismissal?
Wouldn't you realize that you're parroting a rhetorical style that has been used to justify and paper over mistreatment of women in business and personal settings? If this were a good faith statement why would it repeat every trope trotted out by Joe Tacopina?
I just don't know, I'm not saying I do or do not think that OP's statement is an example of unwitting enrollment in institutional sexism, or whether I do or do not think it's trolling.
I just don't know.
I don't think OP has any reason to side with Linus here, I think the thrust is just that there's only two pieces of evidence here, and both from people with opposite motives.
I'm more likely to believe Madison here, but I think there's a good chance she's overreacting too. It seems she was treated poorly, and that makes it easier to justify exaggeration.
I'm not particularly hopeful that an external investigation will really help here (after all, they're likely being paid by LMG), so I'm hopeful that some current or previous employees can corroborate at least some of the claims.
So I guess I'm kind of siding with the OP here, I'm going to reserve judgement until I have more evidence. If I had to pick today, I'd probably side with Madison because her motives to lie are weaker.
Even if the external investigators are good and it is truly the intention of upper management to get to the bottom of it and they are fully prepared to fire anyone who did something wrong, (I'm not casting doubt on their motives) I truly believe that the external investigation will clear them or they'll point to 1 person and fire them.
Reason being is memories fade, fear of reprisals, people make excuses or believe certain things weren't as they were, and there is likely not a lot written down.
Unfortunately, it's likely to be a he said/she said situation.
True. However, I can hope that, as a small-ish SM company, they'll care enough to be more transparent than that.
$100M sounds like a lot for a company, but that's still pretty small potatoes when it comes to companies. Some bad press could see a lot of viewers leave and the company could go under (or drastically scale back) very quickly. That's just the nature of SM.
I think you're probably right, but I'm optimistic that LMG will do more than most larger corporations do. I'm not expecting it though, just hopeful.
I never said that OP was "siding with Linus", I said OP was using a rhetorical style that can be used to dismiss/minimize claims from pretty much anybody, regardless of the situation.
I wanted to call OP's attention to the fact that that style of argumentation is used in bad faith more often than not.
More than a couple people in my life have been sexually assaulted and if you've ever actually been close to somebody who has, the callousness of the "well why didn't you..." line of nitpicking is glaring.
Oh, I completely agree. I think the default should always be to side with the victim, even if there's a good reason to doubt them.
I just think we sometimes go too far and ignore the other side when it doesn't line up with what the victim says. Weigh the evidence and the motives of each party before making a decision. The bigger the power difference between the two, the more you should suspect the larger party of malice.
I'm more reacting to the strength of the language here, not the general idea.
I had a false accusation of sexual assault leveled against me in a court filing (as soon as we got in front of a judge it got tossed). It is pretty awful to have something like that stated about you in an official document, even when the outcome is "Dismissed".
And fwiw, to take the Carroll case in NY, I thought the line of argument "she can't remember what year it was?" was a pretty reasonable thing to have doubts about.
I'm talking about social media reactions here, not police policy.
The police should always assume innocence unless you have proof to the contrary, because the opposite is a potential loss of liberty for innocent people. If you're a regular joe, you should side with the victim until the other side posts evidence to the contrary, because the opposite is potentially normalizing bad behavior of people in power.
She did write a review on Glassdoor, and Linus downplayed it then IIRC
I know she did, but what I was saying was why didn’t anyone else (on Glassdoor or anywhere else) (also the downplaying isn't very good, it was someone's legitimate feelings even if you/others disagreed with them)
I only see two other reviews on their Glassdoor which are both positive, but that isn’t a lot so it’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion
Sure, it's not a great indication. Everything I've seen so far, and the leaked 2021 meeting with James seeming to have made a sexual joke at the end of a sexual harassment meeting... it's not looking great.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... it might be a duck.
It very well might be... though I hope (less and less now) it's just a weird pigeon
Edit: That recording of the team meeting with James' joke really doesn't help
A former employee of LTT responded to Madison's departure announcement supporting her decision to leave LTT.
Here is the tiktok of the employee vagueposting about a possible toxic work environment. (Name is Maxine).
https://v.redd.it/ihu19dp22u981
That link doesn't work cuz the post is deleted, but here's an archive of it
I'm a bit confused on how it supports her decision though, can you explain? (not saying it doesn't, I'm just not into a ton of zoomer tiktok stuff and think there's something I'm missing)
I forgot to mention that she showed support on a different platform, twitter .It all occurred at the same time, that's why I lumped it all together. Can't link since I don't have an account. I'm pretty sure I saw people mentioning Max's twitter support in the comments of the reddit post. It was in the form of a liked tweet which is big because everyone can see your liked tweets.
The old version of the post works but not the redesign for some reason.
https://old.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/rwid1w/maxine_vagueposting_about_why_madison_actually/
Was the support just Max liking the tweet or was it more than that like a comment? I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you're saying
Apparently to the zoomers its a big think to like a tweet since everyone can see that you liked it. Its like a sly "retweet". Retweets are when you just post the same tweet to your followers.
I wasn't aware of that leaked meeting. What are you refering to ?
There was a meeting the day after Madison quit, and at the end of the meeting, James seems to have made a joke about sexual harassment. It wasn't a great look. That meeting recently leaked.
Linus is not declaratively stating it didn't happen, he's using PR doublespeak to minimize his legal exposure down the road.
That's why I said "essentially saying they didn't". He's doing it for business reasons, but at it's core, his message was he wasn't aware of it and didn't think it was happening, while Madison was saying he did know and didn't care Maybe one is lying, maybe both are, maybe neither are. At this point, we really can't know until something like that third party investigator releases their results
the review on glassdoor is hers.
I know, that's why I meant someone besides Madison when I said anyone else. Sorry if that wasn't clear
Indeed, why is that? Why would she have such an abnormaly bad experience at this particular company? I can't seem to think of any particular traits that she might have which would have caused her to be treated differently. If sexist comments and sexual harassment are such a problem, then why do people like Gary, James, Ed, Nick, Colton, or Luke apparently seem blind to it? I have no idea what disparity in the distribution of power could possibly account for this phenomenon!
This question has been asked a million times. It has been shown time and time again that whether more people come forward has no correlation to how common something is. This is mostly because it's really hard to do so while being bullied (which is really just abuse).
Even an outside investigator might have issues getting the real story, and is biased due to being on the same payroll as all the other employees. I have had personal experience with this: an outside investigator called in to resolve a conflict with a person whose bullying had previously caused multiple people to quit. It was resolved "amicably" (which is to say not at all). An employer only gives a damn so far as their bottom line goes, and that goes for Linus too. This investigator is going to come in and tip-toe around LMG's and Linus's involvement in this, mark my words.
Again, to summarize, Linus saying the things didn't happen is exactly why people don't come forward: my word vs the boss.
She did leave a 1 star review in glassdoor when she quit.
I know she did, but what I was saying was why didn't anyone else
I only see two other reviews on their Glassdoor which are both positive, but that isn't a lot so it's hard to draw a definitive conclusion
They may have but the company has the opportunity to get those removed
I mean another piece of evidence is that she had really choose a hard path to walk IF there was nothing going on. She could have just left and kept this bridge unburned if their was nothing to this.
In this situation, one thing that is essentially certain: something happened which led to Madison leaving the company. The reason why is what is being looked into right now (aka are Madison's claims true)