this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
824 points (94.0% liked)
Technology
59596 readers
2896 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The end result will likely be something like: "We have investigated ourselves and found that we are blameless of any wrongdoing". Which is usually how these things end up.
Also, weird to not see them saying they'll reach out to Madison to get the story from her, but I guess that might be one of those obvious things so not mentioned. I hope.
It being a third-party investigator means they aren't "investigating themselves."
My point is that when you are the one ordering an investigation on yourself, usualyl the results are bound to be highly skewed towards what you want.
I've seen my government recently do this in a pretty big corruption case that would have made heads roll, as well as a couple other private entities I can think of who have hired "outside investigators" to investigate themselves only to go like what I said.
I'm obviously open to being proven wrong in this case, but the track record of such things isn't very positive.
Sorry I wasn't very clear, I just didn't want to make my comment too big.
Aside from ordering a third party investigator, how else can a company prove to itself and everyone that they are serious about corrective action?
You're essentially saying they are guilty of everything and no matter the findings which haven't even begun, there is a conspiracy. I don't see how that cynicism is productive.
My point is they shouldn't be the ones doing the auditing (or at least ordering it), it should be an outside source doing it (in this case, I guess a government entity? Or something independent from LMG anyhow).
I'll gladly admit to being a cynic, but that's because I've worked in similar work environments, quit for very similar reasons and saw nothing being done too. So it's a sore spot for me too. I can easily see my own bias in this situation.
In any case, we'll have to wait and see how it pans out. Hopefully for the best is what matters in the end.
A third party isn't them though. I get what you are saying because LMG writes the check, but realistically that's the best anyone can do. Why would the government get involved? Specifically why would taxpayers pay to help rehabilitate a private company's reputation?
Private independent auditors are in every industry and a standard practice.
Oh, and as long as we're being cynical, let's say you got your wish and a government entity does the investigation. Odds are they would just contract it out to these same people. Same results, only everyone gets to charge more for their services.
Cause it's gonna be biased towards LMG.
Your last paragraph really sums up your perspective. Hi staunch capitalist.
Issue is they're trying to investigate something from more than two years ago. They're unlikely to find anything at all in the first place.
That's also very true, absolutely not gonna disagree there.
In any case, all we can do is speculate, we will see the end result when it eventually comes out. As long as this brings positive change to LMG as a whole, that'll be good.
I know it won't matter overall, but I won't see the change since I've unsubbed to everything LMG related myself (a long time coming, honestly) but I really do wish them all the best.