• TDCN@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    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?

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      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.

      • ashok36@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year 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
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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.

        • Log1cal_Outcome@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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…

    • Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      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.

    • GigglyBobble@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      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.

      • TDCN@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year 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@feditown.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

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

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year 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
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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.

    • bluekieran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • DrPop@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.