this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
1087 points (94.2% liked)
linuxmemes
22855 readers
1297 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
3. Post Linux-related content
sudo
in Windows.4. No recent reposts
5. π¬π§ Language/ΡΠ·ΡΠΊ/Sprache
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 β 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?