743
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 34 points 1 year ago

What a corporate answer that says, now that the public knows we suck I guess we need to address it.

[-] TDCN@feddit.dk 33 points 1 year ago

What kind of answer would you rather have. I'm seriously asking what should the comment have been in order for you to be happy?

[-] Anonymousllama@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I feel a good majority of people are just in the outrage phase and there's literally no response that would have been good enough.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Maybe an inclusion of the word sorry.

And wording it so it sounds like it was written by an actual human being that gives a shit and not a dressed out HR drone that only knows corpspeak.

[-] anlumo@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

They tried that with the video, it didn’t work.

[-] ashok36@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Dude, crimes have been alleged. You do not say "sorry" in writing while a criminal investigation is looming.

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

This reads as it was written by ChatGPT.

[-] TDCN@feddit.dk 2 points 1 year ago

That I can agre to. The word sorry bares some weight and to me it shows that you care even more than just doing damage control.

[-] Shepstr@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unfortunately saying sorry is an admission of guilt. A sterile corporate response is the best they can do to appear impartial while the investigation goes ahead. The apologies may come later if there is truth to the allegations.

[-] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Saying sorry isn't (legally) an admission of guilt in Canada

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Maybe an inclusion of the word sorry.

yeah because we all know the internet is level headed and it won't be twisted into a clear admission of guilt 5 nano seconds later....

[-] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

There is no way. Too many corp answers that were nothing but words have been published before for anyone to not be cynic about it.

[-] RealJoL@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

To be honest, I can't remember the last time I have read a statement that talked about bringing in third party investigators. Is that common for corporations?

[-] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's usually something agreed to in a settlement or in a power dynamic situation like Apple telling a supplier they want a third party audit. It also happens when you have no intention of ever publishing the findings. That they're proactively doing it with the obvious obligation to publish what is found and the consequence of it is most def a show of positive character. I think ya boy Hanlon is right when it comes to leadership at LMG - never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

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

This, but maybe not after what we got from Linus to begin with. This is clearly damage control and also is probable detracting from what limus actually feels which is f*ck you I can do what I want and I don't owe you anything.

[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

Oh I'm fine with the answer. With the information I gathered that same day this is probably the best they can do now. I would like to know more info about this outside investigation.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

If they're smart, they'll realize they need to address these issues in order to exist as a company people want to work at going forward. It's in their best interest to not appear as a toxic work environment.

[-] Vinnyboiler@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

They recently got a new CEO a month ago because Linus the owner realized he was unfit for that purpose. It should have been dealt with years ago but I wonder if some benefit of the doubt can be given here seeing as the company was in a state of transition and probably would of cleaned up the work culture in private.

Or not because Linus still owns the company and the buck stops at the absolute top. He put his friend in high positions so it would cause a uncomfortable position when someone who wasn't his friend lower down the ladder were to speak out. He has also consistently showed toxic masculinity in the way he acts and has spread it within the fabric in the company,

I have no strong opinion one way or another, but please tell me if I'm being unfair here on either side here. I think the company can still clean itself up and has shown actions before it was publicly known to address it, and I also think the company has misogyny in it's corporate structure and DNA which will constantly be problematic.

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

Technology

59205 readers
3013 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