Has LTT become too large?

[jim]

So in the position LMG were in, what else would you suggest they could have done that would have been any better than commissioning such an investigation? Because I can't think of much.

Regarding the rest of your post, I've worked in audit-adjacent fields so am well aware of the limitations, but it also creates some of my scepticism. Buyers of reports have a lot of influence over them. I think if they really wanted to, they could have engaged a charity or similar, funded them to contract investigators and ensured the whole thing was performed at complete arms length. And been very clear that all employees (past and current) were interviewed with full anonymity.

That aside, if I'm being honest, any outcome that saw them found innocent was not going to assuage my concerns. I understand that in a sense that's unfair, because perhaps they are completely innocent in this case, and so I'm judging them unfairly. But I find it far too convenient that they keep having incidents, and they're never to blame.

Just off the top of my head, they were using some software without appropriate licensing, and Linus blamed being too big to notice. Linus slagged off DarkViperAU for a video that he confessed not even watching. Linus refused to provide a proper warranty on the backpacks (IIRC) until Steve called them out. They screwed up their review of and I believe then stole a custom waterblock, and Linus basically said they'd done nothing wrong until challenged. They've been accused of unreasonable working practices / excessively pressuring their staff on multiple occasions. Then this happened. And, the entire time, Linus is basically rolling around in cash, showing off how wealthy he is and how big and successful LMG is, but then as soon as something goes wrong acts like they're a small start-up and can't reasonable be expected to, for example, license their software. I don't buy it.

If this was the only thing that had ever gone awry, and a law firm said "yeah, we've investigated and you're squeaky clean", I'd be fine with that.

But they keep making blatant, public mistakes and then denying all accountability until it's about to smack them in the wallet - at which point they beat a quick retreat and say "hey, it's an accident / we've learned from it". So for me, they've lost all credibility and I don't trust anything that comes out.

[Saracen999]

That, of course, is a different issue from Madison, and the credibility of tht report.

The backpack warranty thing "trust me Bro", for example, was monumentally cack-handed if you ask me, and a numbskull move by Linus. His rationale seemed to be "you don't need a written warranty, we'll fix it". That may well even be true, but as far as I was concerned, totally not the point. If they're going to fix the issues anyway (which I suspect they intended to) then there's no harm at all in providing a decent written warranty. He seemed to be reying on the notion that the company and all customers are a "community", yet, at oher times, has gone to lengths to point out that while "we" (that being, regular viewers) feel like we have a relationship wih him (and Luke, etc) because we see them in videos all the time, it isn't bi-directional and if "we" bump into hm somewhere, we're a nuisance if we say hi, and certainly not the friend he thinks we think we are.

You can't have your cake and eat it, Linus. I'd agree being pestered by total strangers that think they're a friend is a pain so .... where's the written warranty, then?

Fortunately, more steady heads (like his Missus, I suspect) prevailed.

I'm not going to go through every issue you mentioned, beyond to say some of them are amenable to having more than one side, like licensing issues. Also, he's not the only company owner to goof like that,but the vast majority arent in the full glare of publicity the way he is.

I can't resent Linus for "rolling in cash", though such assessments are always subjective. He started a business, took some risks, had some very hard times and it worked and he made money. He's entitled to enjoy it, as is anyone else that makes a success by hard work .... and risking their own money. I have FAR more respect for that than I do for those such as, oh I dunno, certain BBC staff for instance, being paid ludicrous sums for minimal (IMHO) talent, and taking zero risk but getting fat from licence-fee payers miney, so many of whom are currently struggling.

The difference with Linus, compared to huge numbers of other successful business people is, again, as a Youtuber, he's front and centre in the public eye again. Rolling in cash isn't unsual, but being such a public figure is. I have to say, in his shoes, I'd personally be far, FAR more careful about my private life. There'd be NOTHING to do with my cars, home, family, kids, etc getting mentioned in videos, let alone making videos about my pool, theatre room, etc, ad nauseum. But then, that;s probably why I'd never be the face of a Youtube channel like his in the first place.

I don't think the way he presents himself comes across as appealing, certainly not in recent years. As a fresh, new face many years ago, the "cheeky chappy" schtick worked. Now? Not so much. If I saw him across the room in a hotel, restaurant etc, I personally wouldn't acknowledge I reognised him let alone go say hello. Which is also what my attitude would be to the entire 'pantheon' of TV stars, Hollywood A-listers, pop stars or whatever. I think so publicly "rolling in it" is in pretty poor taste, but ... he's a Youtuber. It tends to be what they do. And he's nowhere near as ostentatious as a large proportion of A-listers, pop starts etc.

Do I like him? Not espeially. Do I islike him? Also not especially. Why? I don't know him. I somewhat know the public persona he presents, but not the man himself. So I can't say I much care if he acts the oaf by rolling in cash, on his videos. It is, after all, his schtick.

That is to say, none of the rest of that matters to me in what I think of the Madison allegations (and, so far, that's all they are) or the credibility of that "independent report".

It would, I agree, be a more credible report if MG weren't paying for it BUT ... if not them, who is going to commission it?

And, we (or at least, I) have no idea if Madison may or may not take any allegations further, or if LMG may yet feel they need to. which I'd bet means Linus is being given some fairly explcit legal advice on what is or is not a good idea to say or do, if it may yet end up in front of some form of tribunal, or even a court. And we don't and can't know what that advice is.

Those lawyers are bound by professional standards and would be taking an existential chance with their careers if their report strays outside their professional obligations. That said, such events have been known in "professional" practices, sometimes coming to light amid huge scale scandals.

All I'm saying is I don't give either LMGs public statements, or unsubstantiated allegations, enough credit to form any sort of an opinion either way, because I don't know those involved on either side well enough to do so, and nor do I know their motivations.

Even if Linus is crass enough to publicly wallow in his wealth, or to be a numpty over "trust me, Bro", etc, none of that has any bearing on the validity, or otherwise, of the allegations the report addresses.

[jim]

That, of course, is a different issue from Madison, and the credibility of tht report.

I agree and disagree with you. My point overall was that for the Madison issue in isolation, I completely agree that they've taken reasonable steps and can produce some evidence to back up their side of the story, but I'm not looking at it in isolation. I'm looking at it as another episode in a pattern of repeated poor conduct / mistakes where their first response is to blame someone else.

Thankfully, in this instance I can comment as an uninformed consumer rather than as a lawyer / journalist / auditor. Because if I was performing one of those roles here, I'd have to judge far more firmly on the facts for the incident in isolation.

Though we could debate the credibility of the report endlessly, and without knowing the methodology / evidence it would be hard to avoid going round in circles, my argument comes down to a) buyers of reports can influence the outcomes and b) I do not trust LMG one iota. From that perspective, I agree that they're different issues, but to me it's a huge influence on why I'm sceptical of the conclusions.

Without going into details, something I've been trained in is spotting patterns, looking for consistent threads between what people consider to be unrelated events and building up a picture despite a lack of concrete evidence. I'm sure that influences me heavily here, because it's a totally different lens to one of say law.

You can't have your cake and eat it, Linus. I'd agree being pestered by total strangers that think they're a friend is a pain so .... where's the written warranty, then?

Precisely. For me, this is something I saw in their content all the time and drives why I see them as so fundamentally dishonest. When they want to be a small "trust me bro" start-up, they act like that, and then two minutes later they're a big corporation. And then another two minutes later they're moaning about big corporations for doing the same type of thing that they've just done.

Those lawyers are bound by professional standards and would be taking an existential chance with their careers if their report strays outside their professional obligations. That said, such events have been known in "professional" practices, sometimes coming to light amid huge scale scandals.

Referring back to my earlier comment about having worked in adjacent professions, on multiple occasions I have been asked my professional opinion on something, drawn some conclusions and then suddenly someone pops out and says "Oh you might want to know this", and then my conclusion changes completely. If you create a culture where people don't feel able to speak up, that's not going to change when you suddenly bring in a high-powered law firm. Put another way, if the accusations were true, and other staff had witnessed / experienced abuse, do I believe they would have told the law firm? Based on what I know about people in that situation, I don't think they would have done. So from that perspective, this report doesn't exonerate them. It simply fails to substantiate the claims. And that's fine. But that's why I say it doesn't change my views at all.

Even if Linus is crass enough to publicly wallow in his wealth, or to be a numpty over "trust me, Bro", etc, none of that has any bearing on the validity, or otherwise, of the allegations the report addresses.

That's fair, but hopefully you can see why, for me, it does have some bearing.