Are you referring to the sexual harassment claim that was alleged to have happened via another employee, but never substantiated?

…Linus Sebastian’s statements are generally known.

Apparently not based on your comments. Another explanation is that certain individuals know the facts, but twist the truth in an effort to manipulate others.

The playbook is generally to move the goalposts afterwards, but I’ve been surprised on Lemmy before so who knows? It takes a lot more energy to refute someone’s claims than it does to make them, so if a discussion is happening in bad faith it’s really not worth having.

And 8 months later the results of the investigation were posted here:

https://xcancel.com/LinusTech/status/1793428629378208057

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

• Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

• Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

• Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

• There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

• Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

Other than attacking me, what is the point of you commenting?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EwgZaSYuBLc&t=8458s&pp=2AGKQpACAQ%3D%3D

Found via: https://whenplane.com/search

Yeah, burden of proof is on me there.

If I felt like this was a genuine discussion, I might try to dig up clips of him talking about it, but at this point I feel like I’d just be talking to a wall.

ad hominem much?

For all anyone knows reading your comments you are either fabricating or twisting something said to fit your narrative. If you can’t or won’t find a source for your claims, that is totally fine, but I’m calling bs on those claims.

Worth stating that this video was much more about the interview, rather than giving hardware recommendations.

Show me the proof where he said he is anti-union.

What alternative was there? This is such a disingenuous take.

Yeah, I guess the accuser really should have been the one to pay tens of thousands to a third party right?

I’m fairly sure that nothing could change your mind at this point, but by all means keep spreading your misinformation.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

I can’t prove a negative, but he has stated multiple times that he is pro union.

Additionally, the 3rd party law firm that investigated the ex employee’s claims against LMG (the company) found that:

Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

You should also note that the former employee never accused Linus Sebastian (the individual) of being a sex pest. Certain people lie about this constantly on the internet, and others believe it is true without verifying the facts

He’s also vocally anti-labor organization and anti-union.

Arguably he’s also pro workplace sexual harassment…

Untrue on both counts, but I’d love to see a source that proves me wrong

Brave Search has !bangs and an independant search index. Kagi relies heavily on it.

Not even a little in this situation. Maybe take your head out of your ass and stop spreading lies. He literally addressed this head on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/comment/m7nr5ym/

His reply in text form:

It’s the year I was born, and also a lucky number in Taiwan where I am from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)#%3A~%3Atext=Number+88+symbolizes+fortune+and%2Csupermarkets+often+contain+many+8s.