Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[RatKnight]

Just now, HesCalledTheStig said:

That is exactly where I stand right now. But it seems the more information that comes out, the more I’m leaning away from LMG. I’m not going to be one of those people that is going to completely boycott them but, they need to do a lot of housecleaning before they ever have my business again.
 

That’s if it turns out to all be true.

Yeah, Emily's comment definitely moved me more towards the "There is probably a fire here".  I, however am not a big fan of the social justice via social media stuff.  I will make my decision one way or the other when there is more information.

[RatKnight]

3 minutes ago, kalleth said:

It's a viewpoint informed by looking at the top and bottom of the comments of the relevant posts that went viral on reddit, combined with being a human being, who works in tech, and understands some of these issues, as much as a 30-something man can. "Half" was an approximation, but it's a pretty close one.

 

I'm angry, and I've had a floatplane subscription since 2018.

 

You are welcome to feel however you like about it.  As I said, I am not saying the community is not split.  The only thing I am trying to get across is that we have one side of a story, and the other side has shut up, and is investigating.  I have followed LTT for a long time as well, and I hope that these allegations are a misunderstanding or exaggerated... but to be clear, if they are not, and heads do not roll, I will be gone as well.  

 

I am waiting to see what comes of their internal investigations, and/or comes out in the coming days.

[HesCalledTheStig]

2 minutes ago, RatKnight said:

Yeah, Emily's comment definitely moved me more towards the "There is probably a fire here".  I, however am not a big fan of the social justice via social media stuff.  I will make my decision one way or the other when there is more information.

I think LMG is moving in the right direction if they are in fact investigating the situation.  But everything is still speculation at this point  and remains to be seen.

[CrabbyDadTech]

What concerns me is it will be the usual song and dance in a "he said / she said" situation. Anyone sensible knows there are three sides to every story, "He Said / She Said / and The Truth" - Somewhere in the middle of all of this is the truth, but because Madison has clearly admitted to some mental health challenges she will be minimized as a woman, all the while Linus had a crying public meltdown on webcam, he will be cheered for his honesty and sensitivity.... Women just don't get a fair shake in these incidents. Look at Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard. Most of the media I saw vilified Amber Heard as mentally ill and painted Johnny Depp as a victim, but if you paid attention to all the details it was clear how abusive Depp was as a narcissistic drug addict. But you know, rough childhood, so he gets a pass, she... obviously she has got to be the only crazy one there. It's not fair, and that's how Madison will be painted by the people who want to minimize her claims, while the man who clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder will get to cry victim of mean lady who just wants to tear him down out of jealousy or spite. It's the classic playbook in a fundamentally sexist society, and it will likely work. 

[HesCalledTheStig]

2 minutes ago, CrabbyDadTech said:

What concerns me is it will be the usual song and dance in a "he said / she said" situation. Anyone sensible knows there are three sides to every story, "He Said / She Said / and The Truth" - Somewhere in the middle of all of this is the truth, but because Madison has clearly admitted to some mental health challenges she will be minimized as a woman, all the while Linus had a crying public meltdown on webcam, he will be cheered for his honesty and sensitivity.... Women just don't get a fair shake in these incidents. Look at Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard. Most of the media I saw vilified Amber Heard as mentally ill and painted Johnny Depp as a victim, but if you paid attention to all the details it was clear how abusive Depp was as a narcissistic drug addict. But you know, rough childhood, so he gets a pass, she... obviously she has got to be the only crazy one there. It's not fair, and that's how Madison will be painted by the people who want to minimize her claims, while the man who clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder will get to cry victim of mean lady who just wants to tear him down out of jealousy or spite. It's the classic playbook in a fundamentally sexist society, and it will likely work. 

I don’t believe this to be correct at all. I think Madison has the upper hand here. And rightly so if her allegations are true.

[CrabbyDadTech]

Just now, HesCalledTheStig said:

I don’t believe this to be correct at all. I think Madison has the upper hand here. And rightly so if her allegations are true.

I hope you are correct 

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, CrabbyDadTech said:

What concerns me is it will be the usual song and dance in a "he said / she said" situation. Anyone sensible knows there are three sides to every story, "He Said / She Said / and The Truth" - Somewhere in the middle of all of this is the truth, but because Madison has clearly admitted to some mental health challenges she will be minimized as a woman, all the while Linus had a crying public meltdown on webcam, he will be cheered for his honesty and sensitivity.... Women just don't get a fair shake in these incidents. Look at Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard. Most of the media I saw vilified Amber Heard as mentally ill and painted Johnny Depp as a victim, but if you paid attention to all the details it was clear how abusive Depp was as a narcissistic drug addict. But you know, rough childhood, so he gets a pass, she... obviously she has got to be the only crazy one there. It's not fair, and that's how Madison will be painted by the people who want to minimize her claims, while the man who clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder will get to cry victim of mean lady who just wants to tear him down out of jealousy or spite. It's the classic playbook in a fundamentally sexist society, and it will likely work. 

Aside from being off topic, the stuff about Depp / Hurd is objectively false.

[HenrySalayne]

10 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

"Deep legal issues" is real. Madison has done at least a couple of million CAD in Brand damage to LMG and some level of damage to Linus personally. Just because LMG is in internal & external review at the moment doesn't change that damage. Just because it isn't in court at this moment, doesn't mean that liability doesn't still exist. Oh, and there's also still the issue about required reporting under BC employment law for management.

I can literally copy my last post:

"Everything else is just unfounded speculation or in most cases wishful thinking."

And you are outright doing it again, just speculating and fantasizing in a vacuum. You might not have realised this, but you have no part in this conversation. You are just some random rubberneck on the internet.

 

I cannot fathom how delusional somebody must be to talk about monetary damages with literally zero insight into the whole situation.

[CrabbyDadTech]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Aside from being off topic, the stuff about Depp / Hurd is objectively false.

I'd argue on topic because it compares a media "He said / She said" incident in regard to claims of abuse. To me, both those parties were abusive, but Depp gets a pass as a guy. Guys can be mentally ill, I mean, he is just a rowdy rock star that had a bad childhood you know?? Lady shows a hint of mental illness (and I'm not saying she wasn't awful too) but if she does, she is characterized as full out insane. I could give several other relevant examples, but that isn't important, what I'm saying is that is my concern for Madison, that she admitted to some mental health struggles her claims will be minimized. 

[ReallyThough]

To start, sorry for the upcoming wall of text, but keep in mind my point of view on these situations have been formed
from my own experiences simliar to what Madison is describing.

As someone who has experienced this myself and witnessed it happening to other people, I have to take this story
with a huge grain of salt.

I have witnessed female and male coworkers abuse he said/she said allegations to get what they want way too
many times.

Examples would be a female coworker when I was in college. She disliked the work we did and as long as no one was
watching, would basically do nothing and study or do homework (both things against employement agreement).
At some point she got into an argument with the manager about this very topic, indicating that the rules don't apply
to them for whatever reason and when she didn't get what she wanted she escalated to the person who ran the business.

When she still didn't get what she wanted and was told to go back to work and to stop doing school work during work hours,
she ignored this and eventually got fired.

A few weeks later the manager was escorted out of the building under allegations of sexual misconduct and assault.

Big surprise for me as I was the only one who knew he was gay, and found this particular female repulsive in both looks and
personality and would do everything to not be physically around them. Upper management ignored this as it was out of their hands
at that point.

3 years this person waited for their court date, and on the day of their court date, the ex employee told the judge
that they decided not to go through with it and that they had lied. She apologized to her manager for what happened as her
mother pushed her to make these allegations.

Nothing happened to either of these people, the manager was unable to get any good employement after that, even though
the case was dropped, and there were 0 ramifications for the female employee.

Another instance of a place I worked at, they hired me and a women (we were both around 20 at the time).
We worked together and got along well. That includes flirting and innapropriate for workplace comments and touching.
Never went further than light flirting and gentle tickles or putting an arm around shoulders etc.

The issue wasn't with me but the owner. He was an old fellow, probably close to 60, and she would flirt with him
constantly. She would sit in his lap and it was obvious he was enjoying the attention. His wife had been passed away for
20ish years and he never got together with someone else.

At some point, their inter office banter changed. I noticed that she was getting lazy and just screwing around all shift,
and it wasn't ever busy so I could easliy keep myself busy picking up her slack.
The owner didn't like this and made a comment about it and how he wanted to see us both working equally hard.

She did not like this and got into an argument about how she works just as hard as I do etc.
The next few days were awkward silence etc.

Then she left and a few days later the police came to speak to us.
I got interviewed and asked questions about the work place and my interactions with the ex employee.
It was freaking nerve wracking as I had been flirting with this person and worried that I was going to get in trouble.
She had made allegations that the owner would flirt with her and say innapropriate things (he did but she had set the bar for their interactions).
and they made her feel uncomfortable and he would touch her innaproprietly.
I just explained truthfully the things I witnessed myself and that was that, we never heard back from them or the ex employee and I left
soon after that. The owner was never the same after that, he didn't joke or smile, and people had obviously heard about
the police and allegations etc. And even though nothing happened, his rep was destroyed and he lost business and eventually retired.

The last time I witnessed something similar to this was a male employee who liked to joke innapropriately with his female
manager.
They would have fun one upping each other in who could say the most awful thing, usually sexual in nature. They would have frank conversations
about their dating life etc. They were truly what I would consider "bros".
At some point something changed and he accused her of assaulting him and touching him without his consent.
Like my other experiences, this was not a black and white situation where both parties participated in innparopriate talk/behaviour for an office
location, but in this case it didn't matter, manager was fired.

Now I have also had conversations with friends who've been on the receiving end of absolute sexaul assualt at work places,
where the situations were pretty straight up black and white, so I know it happens.

But in this case, I hope that Madison is being completely honest here in describing what happened, because
engaging in conversations where you indicate that certain topics are ok with you, then turning around and saying they were innapropriate is NOT ok.
And I've seen people have their lives unfairly ruined because of this.

If what she said is true, then people need to be fired at LMG, and potential criminal charges for assault, that's not ok.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I can literally copy my last post:

"Everything else is just unfounded speculation or in most cases wishful thinking."

And you are outright doing it again, just speculating and fantasizing in a vacuum. You might not have realised this, but you have no part in this conversation. You are just some random rubberneck on the internet.

 

I cannot fathom how delusional somebody must be to talk about monetary damages with literally zero insight into the whole situation.

Has Madison's Twitter Thread done PR damage to LMG and/or Linus? Yes or No?

 

Whether Madison is perfectly legally protected or wildly defamatory doesn't change that. Welcome to reality.

 

Also, you're just rubbernecking as well, aren't you?

[TeraSeraph]

2 hours ago, yoc said:

Nobody will do nothing to him, lmao, this is the LTT forum not the Italian Mafia forum or some shit like that. Don't be ridiculous.
I agree with him, this community can be very toxic and is currently being toxic specially towards Madison (doing stuff like victim blaming and so on...).
If any of you, big guys, want to make me disappear or whatever feel free to PM me and will send you my current location.

Lots of people are saying it's victim blaming to say the burden of proof is on her. How are we supposed to know any of her allegations are true and she isn't the toxic one? 

 

I could believe Steve because he had proof to back everything but I've yet to hear anything from her besides outrage and stiring the pot. 

 

I'm not into feeding a baseless witch hunt until evidence is provided.

[RatKnight]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Has Madison's Twitter Thread done PR damage to LMG and/or Linus? Yes or No?

 

Whether Madison is perfectly legally protected or wildly defamatory doesn't change that. Welcome to reality.

 

Also, you're just rubbernecking as well, aren't you?

I have said before, and I will repeat it.... the likelihood of LMG ever actually suing is very low.  It would do even more reputation damage, unless they could prove this was completely malicious.

 

That being said, a lot of folks in this thread, and on reddit, are looking at all of this through the lens of American law... which doesn't apply here.

 

I still think the entire point is moot, if interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint.

[TeraSeraph]

2 hours ago, BraveNewDoors said:

I don't want to discredit Madison off the rip. There very well may be truth to what she's saying. But everyone jumping on the bandwagon of "This was the last straw for me!" needs to hold up at least a little bit.

First of all, these are just allegations. Typically here in the western world, we consider allegations to be just that--allegations. Not proof by themselves. If there is some corroboration, absolutely. But we live in a time where we've seen the power of women making these types of allegations, and often they have been true...and it's great that the offenders were brought down in those cases! However, there have been some who have come out and made false allegations, or at the very least uncorroborated allegations. Sometimes out of malice, and sometimes truly unintentionally. Which leads me to my next point.

Second, Traumatic experience does weird things to the brain. It's very possible that some of what she is saying is true, and some of it is not. People, especially those who have certain neurodivergences, can catastrophize things. There could have been something innocuous that her already-stressed mind blew up into something way worse. I'm not saying that's certainly what is happening here. But absent supporting evidence, I think these things should be considered. It's not good practice, nor does it set a good precedent, to believe an allegation on it's face. Even when the person making it might truly believe it's true, there could be some nuance they are leaving out. Given that she, admittedly, harmed herself to take a day off... I would say it's safe to assume that she does have some sort of neurodivergence/mental illness. Whether caused by this job or not, it's worth considering that her account of events (and even her perception at the time) may not be fully reliable or accurate.

Third, LMG is a "small" company relatively, but they're big for this space. Given that, it's important to remember that since she's not naming names, she could be talking about one, or multiple, of literally over one-hundred people with her most serious allegations. If someone did make sexually inappropriate comments, there's no reason to believe outright that it was one of the people you see on camera all the time. Or that those people even knew. Sometimes evil people are good at concealing their evil, and there could be a bad actor or two that are "hiding in the shadows" so-to-speak, who were mistreating her and then getting ahead of any reports by spreading lies or warnings about her. That's definitely bad, very bad, but it's not always easy to be aware of people who are doing that in the moment. Pre-framing has some insane psychological effects. There have been studies done on this. If I drop subtle hints about a person, painting them in a negative light in your head, it's likely that you'll perceive them as negative. If I drop subtle positive hints, the opposite is likely to happen. This has been studied, especially as part of marketing. It's a crazy phenomenon. So good-natured people could have been pre-framed to believe she was just a drama-starter and that could be why they intially wrote her off. Again, I'm not saying that makes the situation okay. But I'm saying that a bad actor could have gotten away with it for a reason that is far less bad than the top dogs just not caring or writing her off.


Please, don't read this as a blanket defense of LMG. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that since there's an investigation that will be underway regarding these allegations, it's important not to jump to hard-line conclusions just yet, regardless of the credibility you may associate with the accuser. (And on the flip side, we shouldn't assume the accuser has bad intentions either, even if they do end up being inaccurate)

Try telling all this to the mob on reddit though. If you're not supporting her you're a heretic.

[hmfaysal]

Everybody missed the notum. I am kinda baffled by it. The point is "Deplatforming LTT/LMG" off of YouTube. That's all. 

None of the parties are seeking monetary incentives from LMG, because they cannot get it in legal ways. None of the parties are looking to help the community, they cannot even they want to, they have businesses in the same arena or they may have worked for this behemoth. 

Assets of LTT and sister channels are held under an umbrella corporation. So even if LTT/LMG cease to exist due to backlash, they will just downsize and start different channels in other verticals, ie DIY, gaming, or something as simple as comedy. 

In this scenario, the only avenue that remains is YouTube itself. I mean the company. The only positive outcome from this storm is YouTube banning LTT/LMG from their platform. Lets see what happens. The only problem, even with a 15 million subscriber sized hole, I don't really think either Steve from GN or Madison can really monetize from the hole. There will be media companies propping up other actors to fill in the gap. Like the one that offered LTT 100 mills, but it won't be Steve or Maddie. 

I really hope Madison gets something out of this.

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, CrabbyDadTech said:

I'd argue on topic because it compares a media "He said / She said" incident in regard to claims of abuse. To me, both those parties were abusive, but Depp gets a pass as a guy. Guys can be mentally ill, I mean, he is just a rowdy rock star that had a bad childhood you know?? Lady shows a hint of mental illness (and I'm not saying she wasn't awful too) but if she does, she is characterized as full out insane. I could give several other relevant examples, but that isn't important, what I'm saying is that is my concern for Madison, that she admitted to some mental health struggles her claims will be minimized. 

You seem to have missed the several years that Depp was publicly "drug through the mud" and the loss of work opportunities for what was, as decided by jury decision, defamatory and libelous actions by Hurd, resulting in a large damage award.  We had a massive, live televised court case, so you can go watch all of the messy details.

 

If you want to make a point about media/flying counter narratives/assumptions of truthfulness, that's one thing. But Depp / Hurd is absolutely not the example, unless you're actually an account here to push SEO stuff.

[BraveNewDoors]

17 minutes ago, CrabbyDadTech said:

What concerns me is it will be the usual song and dance in a "he said / she said" situation. Anyone sensible knows there are three sides to every story, "He Said / She Said / and The Truth" - Somewhere in the middle of all of this is the truth, but because Madison has clearly admitted to some mental health challenges she will be minimized as a woman, all the while Linus had a crying public meltdown on webcam, he will be cheered for his honesty and sensitivity.... Women just don't get a fair shake in these incidents. Look at Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard. Most of the media I saw vilified Amber Heard as mentally ill and painted Johnny Depp as a victim, but if you paid attention to all the details it was clear how abusive Depp was as a narcissistic drug addict. But you know, rough childhood, so he gets a pass, she... obviously she has got to be the only crazy one there. It's not fair, and that's how Madison will be painted by the people who want to minimize her claims, while the man who clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder will get to cry victim of mean lady who just wants to tear him down out of jealousy or spite. It's the classic playbook in a fundamentally sexist society, and it will likely work. 

>"...but because Madison has clearly admitted to some mental health challenges she will be minimized as a woman..."
How incredibly cognitively dissonant. Sure, women are treated unfairly often. However that has been drastically reduced over the years, and it's not as commonplace as it was even 20 or 30 years ago. It's not fair to use it as a blanket safeguard against criticism, and you demonstrated that in your own sentence: you called out the mental health challenges. Mental health challenges that could alter her recounting, perception, etc. of the events. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but we can't throw it out because "she's a woman so we can't minimize her". That's intellectually dishonest. All nuances should be able to be considered.

>"Look at Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard..."
This is a wild take. I don't know about you, but I watched a significant portion of that trial and Amber was absolutely insane. And absolutely in the wrong. And Johnny had issues with addiction yes, but there is no legitimate proof that he abused her. To claim otherwise is asinine, that court case was wildly publicized and followed very closely by a lot of people. The verdict is protested by very few, and it was under a lot of scrutiny. This just shows that you have a mental block or a thought-stopping view that women can't do anything wrong without it being someone else's fault. I, for one, have a much higher view of women than you, in that I believe they are free agents fully capable of good and bad, and aren't always victims.

Again, women can be treated unfairly--absolutely. Anyone can be treated unfairly for markers of their identity, and that should always be considered. But it can't be a defense on it's own. You can't write off facts and evidence simply because it's a woman and chock it up to "women are treated unfairly and minimized". Come on, do better than that.

[kalleth]

1 minute ago, TeraSeraph said:

Lots of people are saying it's victim blaming to say the burden of proof is on her. How are we supposed to know any of her allegations are true and she isn't the toxic one? 

 

I could believe Steve because he had proof to back everything but I've yet to hear anything from her besides outrage and stiring the pot. 

 

I'm not into feeding a baseless witch hunt until evidence is provided.

You have to understand the history and background to abuse allegations, especially when it comes to women in the workplace, double especially when it comes to women in technology companies, to understand why what you call a "witch hunt" (which is actually just holding LMG's feet to the flames to make absolutely certain that this behaviour never happens again) is happening.

 

The statement "believe women" seems simplistic, but the reality is that it is incredibly hard to ever prove these things beyond a criminal burden of proof in court, and the balance of power in the relationship between the two parties is so skewed in favour of the corporation, the potential penalties for making truly false accusations so broad, and the chances of making any reasonable "gain" from making accusations of this nature so rare, that when a company is accused of behaviour like this, where there's smoke, there's fire.

 

And you seem to have already made up your mind that the accusations are baseless, counter to your point.

[BraveNewDoors]

1 minute ago, kalleth said:

but the reality is that it is incredibly hard to ever prove these things beyond a criminal burden of proof in court

Her allegations include a lot of things that should have a paper trail, and it also seems like a lot of employees could have witnessed what happened to her. So this isn't entirely correct--not for a situation like this.

A situation where a woman claims she was sexually abused, by a man, alone... yeah that's super hard to prove in court. So I get it in those situations. But this is a much different scenario than that.

[RatKnight]

1 minute ago, kalleth said:

You have to understand the history and background to abuse allegations, especially when it comes to women in the workplace, double especially when it comes to women in technology companies, to understand why what you call a "witch hunt" (which is actually just holding LMG's feet to the flames to make absolutely certain that this behaviour never happens again) is happening.

 

The statement "believe women" seems simplistic, but the reality is that it is incredibly hard to ever prove these things beyond a criminal burden of proof in court, and the balance of power in the relationship between the two parties is so skewed in favour of the corporation, the potential penalties for making truly false accusations so broad, and the chances of making any reasonable "gain" from making accusations of this nature so rare, that when a company is accused of behaviour like this, where there's smoke, there's fire.

 

And you seem to have already made up your mind that the accusations are baseless, counter to your point.

I agree with you - to a point.

 

That being said, we cannot condemn a company, or the people who work there until there is a proper investigation.  There is a reason why the burden of proof is so high for criminal convictions.

 

Holding LMG's feet to the fire to make sure that this is properly handled, and investigated is fine.  Condemning an entire company and the people who work there on nothing more then 1 persons word is not.  I am happy there is going to be an independent investigation, and I look forward to seeing what results from that.  If they find evidence of something, and heads don't roll, I will be out with the pitchforks too.

 

I believe that people making accusations should be supported, and respected.  I, however also believe that the accused has a right to respond and to answer that accusation.  Due process exists in the court system, because we as a society learned (and seem to have forgotten) that mob justice is not justice.

[TeraSeraph]

Just now, kalleth said:

You have to understand the history and background to abuse allegations, especially when it comes to women in the workplace, double especially when it comes to women in technology companies, to understand why what you call a "witch hunt" (which is actually just holding LMG's feet to the flames to make absolutely certain that this behaviour never happens again) is happening.

Bruh I'm a transwoman in trades I'm well aware of discrimination over gender. I haven't gotten the sense gender plays a role in any of this.

 

 

Just now, kalleth said:

The statement "believe women" seems simplistic, but the reality is that it is incredibly hard to ever prove these things beyond a criminal burden of proof in court, and the balance of power in the relationship between the two parties is so skewed in favour of the corporation, the potential penalties for making truly false accusations so broad, and the chances of making any reasonable "gain" from making accusations of this nature so rare, that when a company is accused of behaviour like this, where there's smoke, there's fire.

I still don't get why you're bringing gender into this? 

 

The burden of proof is on her or the investigation if she wants this to gain any traction. If she doesn't have any proof then are we supposed to take her word blindly? 

Just now, kalleth said:

And you seem to have already made up your mind that the accusations are baseless, counter to your point.

I haven't made up my mind on anything. Suspension of belief doesn't constitute judgement.

[digitalscream]

3 minutes ago, BraveNewDoors said:

>"...but because Madison has clearly admitted to some mental health challenges she will be minimized as a woman..."
How incredibly cognitively dissonant. Sure, women are treated unfairly often. However that has been drastically reduced over the years, and it's not as commonplace as it was even 20 or 30 years ago. It's not fair to use it as a blanket safeguard against criticism, and you demonstrated that in your own sentence: you called out the mental health challenges. Mental health challenges that could alter her recounting, perception, etc. of the events. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but we can't throw it out because "she's a woman so we can't minimize her". That's intellectually dishonest. All nuances should be able to be considered.

>"Look at Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard..."
This is a wild take. I don't know about you, but I watched a significant portion of that trial and Amber was absolutely insane. And absolutely in the wrong. And Johnny had issues with addiction yes, but there is no legitimate proof that he abused her. To claim otherwise is asinine, that court case was wildly publicized and followed very closely by a lot of people. The verdict is protested by very few, and it was under a lot of scrutiny. This just shows that you have a mental block or a thought-stopping view that women can't do anything wrong without it being someone else's fault. I, for one, have a much higher view of women than you, in that I believe they are free agents fully capable of good and bad, and aren't always victims.

Again, women can be treated unfairly--absolutely. Anyone can be treated unfairly for markers of their identity, and that should always be considered. But it can't be a defense on it's own. You can't write off facts and evidence simply because it's a woman and chock it up to "women are treated unfairly and minimized". Come on, do better than that.

Exactly; details matter. This isn't remotely like the Amber Heard situation (hell, it's the kind of thing Amber Heard tried to exploit during the run-up and the trial itself to garner sympathy).

 

For example - I think Madison is substantially telling the truth here (too many circumstantial things line up for it to be otherwise), coloured by the lens of somebody done wrong.

 

However, I don't necessarily think the things she's reported are because she's a woman; the instigating factor is more likely to be that she came across as a kid who hadn't built up enough of a caffeine tolerance for her intake. If she'd been a guy, it would there would still have been bullying but in a different way, and it would've been equally unacceptable; the problem is the culture and the poor structure of the company.

 

At least, that's what I've picked up on from all of their videos and everything that's been said here. I could well be wrong, but I have seen similar situations before.

[kalleth]

4 minutes ago, BraveNewDoors said:

Her allegations include a lot of things that should have a paper trail, and it also seems like a lot of employees could have witnessed what happened to her. So this isn't entirely correct--not for a situation like this.

A situation where a woman claims she was sexually abused, by a man, alone... yeah that's super hard to prove in court. So I get it in those situations. But this is a much different scenario than that.

The paper trail is:

1. Usually only ever created by the company themselves, if they acknowledge the problem at all. In this case, they didn't even acknowledge a problem -- their own guidelines (from the leaked meeting) suggest that someone being harassed should go and speak verbally to their harasser.
2. Entirely under the control of the company themselves. Let's say that Madison emailed her concerns to HR - who controls that mailbox now? When she left, did they archive that data or delete it? Does Madison have access to it, to, say "provide receipts" without potentially suing and setting herself up for a multi-year campaign against a company with far greater financial resources than she does, with the potential to both continually relive an abusive event over and over again, and also bankrupt herself by being forced to pay legal fees?

That's why I say that the balance of power is so skewed in favour of the corporation.

2 minutes ago, TeraSeraph said:

Bruh I'm a transwoman in trades I'm well aware of discrimination over gender. I haven't gotten the sense gender plays a role in any of this.

 

 

I still don't get why you're bringing gender into this? 

 

The burden of proof is on her or the investigation if she wants this to gain any traction. If she doesn't have any proof then are we supposed to take her word blindly? 

I haven't made up my mind on anything. Suspension of belief doesn't constitute judgement.

I can't speak to your lived experiences, but I'm amazed that you can't see how gender can be playing a role in this.

 

[starsmine]

48 minutes ago, hmfaysal said:

Everybody missed the notum. I am kinda baffled by it. The point is "Deplatforming LTT/LMG" off of YouTube. That's all. 

None of the parties are seeking monetary incentives from LMG, because they cannot get it in legal ways. None of the parties are looking to help the community, they cannot even they want to, they have businesses in the same arena or they may have worked for this behemoth. 

Assets of LTT and sister channels are held under an umbrella corporation. So even if LTT/LMG cease to exist due to backlash, they will just downsize and start different channels in other verticals, ie DIY, gaming, or something as simple as comedy. 

In this scenario, the only avenue that remains is YouTube itself. I mean the company. The only positive outcome from this storm is YouTube banning LTT/LMG from their platform. Lets see what happens. The only problem, even with a 15 million subscriber sized hole, I don't really think either Steve from GN or Madison can really monetize from the hole. There will be media companies propping up other actors to fill in the gap. Like the one that offered LTT 100 mills, but it won't be Steve or Maddie. 

I really hope Madison gets something out of this.

You are the only person who wants LMG gone. The point is not monetization for gn or Madison. Just for LMG to do BETTER. Don’t act like well over 120 people losing their jobs is a good outcome. Don’t act like making LMG be in real pain that they have to lay people off to survive is a good outcome.

 

Changing procedures internally is what is necessary. To limit mistakes going forward, so no one has to have an experience similar to Madison’s gong forward, regardless of if a couple of details ar not 100% true (why the whole she needs to bring in detailed evidence for every claim is bullshit and doesn’t matter) 

[BraveNewDoors]

8 minutes ago, TeraSeraph said:

Try telling all this to the mob on reddit though. If you're not supporting her you're a heretic.

Well, that's Reddit for you. And it's really our society as a whole. People are too quick to join the mob, especially on the internet. Cooler heads should always prevail. And the mob isn't justified for being so radical even if it turns out the cause they were supporting was correct, either.