• @DrPop
    link
    English
    5411 months ago

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

    • @TDCN@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5411 months 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?

      • @gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3011 months 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.

        • @ashok36@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

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

        • @TDCN@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months 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.

          • Log1cal_Outcome
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13
            edit-2
            11 months 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.

        • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months 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…

      • @Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2211 months 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.

      • GigglyBobble
        link
        fedilink
        1711 months 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.

        • @TDCN@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1311 months ago

          But how to make it better? Do you just want LMG to disappear and leave 100 employers jobless, because that’s not nice either.

            • exu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              511 months ago

              Based on the response above they’re trying to do exactly that now. So maybe wait and see?

          • @uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            Yes. This. Because something else will rise in LMG’s place. Because other companies will see what happened and say we cannot let that happen here, because we don’t want a salted desert where our offices are. Because we don’t want our company to be a synonym for a fallen tower.

            If abuse of employees led to business collapses, then we wouldn’t have edifices like Ubisoft who swim in their lucre while still perpetuating sex abuse rings among the upper management who take their choice of hot office clerks.

            A company of a hundred employees getting razed over a scandal would indeed serve to spare tens of thousands of jobs more and allow developers to develop in peace without getting harassed by their management.

        • @RealJoL@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1011 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 months 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.

      • @bluekieran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        It would start with acknowledging a problematic culture, and give details of initial resignations or sackings to help excise it.

        • @Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1111 months ago

          Maybe after an actual investigation into these allegations. Taking things at face value and grabbing pitchforks has never worked

      • @DrPop
        link
        English
        211 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months 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.