808
Difficult decisions
(reddthat.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
808 points (96.2% liked)
Memes @ Reddthat
917 readers
1 users here now
The Memes community. Where Memes matter the most.
We abide by Reddthat's Instance Rules & the Lemmy Code of Conduct. By interacting here you agree to these terms.
Rules
- No NSFW content
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My ex was very into ltt when they were just getting off the ground, and I thought the content was trash but I stuck with it so I knew wtf the latest video was about so I could be prepared to discuss it. Then started the bell curve of 'decent', then for a very short time 'good' and almost 'enjoyable', then sliding down the other side of the bell curve back to 'decent', and now it's just actual garbage.
I only remain a subscriber for the weekly wan show, and that is wearing on me too. Linus just can't shut the fuck up to save his life, and he interjects more than a helicopter parent. He seems like a decent guy but I want to punch him in the face regardless.
I've been a subscriber to gn for like a decade now and the quality of the content is just night and day. I feel like the poor editors at ltt are pumping out stuff that would be cool if if was 2004 and they were using windows movie maker. But it's just sad for everyone who got pulled into this toilet vortex, and the people who actually have skills are being ignored for the lulz and the most basic of internet humor. At least Arby n The Chief didn't try to cast itself as a serious, educational show. "my roflcopter goes soisoisoisoisoi" was great for that. Ltt at that level is just awful.
I'd absolutely love to see Emily (I think that's her name..) break away and start her own channel. Their knowledge dwarfs all the other presenters, and they actually know what the fuck they are talking about, instead of half-assing a script and going 'yolo lolololol money is no object for short-term internet fame'.
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.