Last night, at approximately 2AM ET, a former employee, Madison Reeve, posted a thread on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, accusing Linus Media Group of cultivating a toxic work environment and encouraging a work culture that was detrimental to her health as well as sexual harassment directed at her by Linus Media Group employees.
“I chose to quit my role at LTT because it, and the working environment I was facing, were ruining my mental health,” her statement begins. “My work was called ‘dogshit’ I was called ‘incompetent’. When I would reach out to managers and try to get help with these situations, I would be told to ‘put on my big girl pants’ and be ‘more assertive’.”
Reeve went on to accuse the company of barring her from videos after she reported being “grabbed multiple times in the office” and being told to “calm my tits” and “stop being such a bitch.”
I was only vaguely aware of this guy. When he released his ratcheting driver gadget a while back, it popped up on a YT review channel that I do watch. Out of curiosity I looked into it.
This Linus guy immediately struck me as a weasel and a d-bag. I don’t have any super powers of observation. People should trust their instincts better. Human instincts are bad compared to animals, but one thing we’re all pretty naturally good at is detecting scumbags. Listen to your instincts, folks. His “charm” is as real as CheezWhiz.
You should see the WAN Show, their podcast. His co-host always looks nervous to say anything out of turn, they basically just read the next topic that Linus wants to talk about.
Or the time where Linus almost took Jake’s fingers out with a hole saw trying to drill holes in a RUNNING PC. Man’s a workplace hazard in more ways than one.
I am a semi-frequent WAN show watcher and I definitely get that vibe. Some people will say that Luke stands up to Linus, but from what I’ve seen it’s only superficial. I have never seen him push Linus enough that it becomes a real disagreement–not on an actual controversy like this, at least. The WAN show where they discussed the Billet Labs review is a perfect example: Luke says “well, maybe we should have re-tested” but then Linus goes off on his “$500 of employee time” tangent and Luke doesn’t call that out as completely ridiculous and hypocritical.
He does voice his disagreement, but not in a way that is going to change anything.
I wasn’t just talking about Luke, sometimes other folks stand in. Though yes Luke is most often the co-host, the show is structured such that Linus does a vast majority of the talking regardless of who else is there. Even Dan in the audio booth just curates and reads questions from chat.
I firmly disagree with this post. People should not just “rely on their instincts,” which have proven time and again to be highly inaccurate and subject to bias. This is starting to look like what those “body language experts” do, and those people have lower accuracy than a coin toss in controlled experiments.
The only reliable way to tell if someone is lying is through actual evidence. What we know so far certainly paints LMG in a bad light, but I will continue to wait for more information to come out.
I agree, I always feel like the “I always knew X was a bad person” discourse that always pops up in the wake of this stuff indicates that like. Somehow you had more knowledge than anyone else about this. It’s basically just fueling your own ego as a result of a situation like this. You don’t know these people, what makes people feel like a gut instinct suffices as sufficiently damning evidence? Like, it’s fine to not like someone and abstain from engaging with them accordingly. That’s okay. But going “I always knew that he was bad” does no good.
Obviously listen to Madison, trust victims and support them (do note that this doesn’t mean not to listen to further developments and adjust your moral judgment accordingly, come what may) but that doesn’t mean to indulge yourself and over-justify your ability to judge someone you’ve never had an interaction with based on vibes alone, that’s a pretty unhealthy pattern to fall into in my opinion that has negative effects long term that don’t benefit anybody.
As I said, I have no super powers of observation and that everyone is born with good instincts on this. It’s taught in classes on protecting yourself from predators: believe your instincts.
I counter your argument with this: some people get heavily invested in internet celebs and in order to protect their own egos will gaslight themselves in to believing “nah, he’s a good guy”.
You’re not wrong that people will tie their sense of self up with internet celebrities and refrain from criticizing them accordingly but that doesn’t mean that instincts for someone whom you have ever met justify showing up to vindicate yourself in a thread like this. If you were a victim in a position like this, do you think seeing people say “oh I always knew he was bad” makes you feel any better for putting your faith in someone like this? Do you think that Linus, if he were innocent (not saying he is or isn’t I’m using it to illustrate a hypothetical) wants to see people saying they always thought he was a horrible person if this all shakes out in a way that absolves him of Madison’s abuse with LMG? Who does it benefit to say that you always knew someone was bad?
Trust your instincts, absolutely. You don’t need to engage with someone if you don’t think they’re good people. But saying “I KNEW” implies you had perfect information, it implies that you’re smarter than dozens of other people about how a situation like this would eventually resolve. That doesn’t benefit anybody, it’s better and more productive to go to the victims, support them, listen to them, and let them speak their piece because ultimately situations like this have to be about them, not about you and how you got a bad vibe from someone on a YouTube video or a Livestream or a few tweets.
You keep making this about ego or me trying to “sound smart” and it’s utterly exhausting because I’m trying to encourage others, not prop up myself. It’s simply not about my ego or self-esteem (no matter how badly you want that straw man to stand up). My entire point is that people should trust their instincts more than they do. And no, I’m not absolving him of any crimes by doing this (that’s more straw man).
Since you insist on projection, I’m going to indulge in some here. It sounds like you just want to engage in a virtue competition here, and you’re reading a lot of consequences and implications into what I said that, in my view, are simply not there. It’s not that I think everything you’re saying is wrong. It’s not. It’s just so twisted out of context and I have to ask myself why. Is Pixel arguing in bad faith in order to do what Pixel is accusing me of? Which is to look smart (or virtuous) on the internet? I don’t know, but the optics are pretty bad at this point.
I want to be clear I’m not blaming you specifically here, or I’m not trying to paint you as a bad actor intentionally. I’m saying that this trend of behavior is common around drama discourse, and I think it’s to the detriment of the situation overall. You’re free to act as you please, you’re free to think I’m virtue signaling, that’s fine and I’m not going to push on that. I’m just trying to use this as an illustration of something that I, as my own individual person, see as an issue surrounding this type of discourse and I wanted to make a point about it accordingly
It’s basically just fueling your own ego as a result of a situation like this.
Every pitchfork mob situation is about ego stroking ultimately. It’'s outgrouping, them vs us. And people with prejudices find it just so perfect to spew their bullshit and get some validation. It’s why racists love yellow media.
I don’t know the truth in this situation and for all I know this guy (and his entire crew for that matter) could be horrible people. But to base that off of prejudice is childish, and I’m sad that it’s infecting beehaw.
Evidence is better than instinct, no argument there. But you don’t always have access to evidence, and ignoring your instincts to jump on a fan bandwagon is ill advised.
I reject the framing of “ignoring your instincts” and “jumping on a fan bandwagon” as a dichotomy. You have the option to just do… neither of those things. Admit the limits of your own knowledge and avoid taking too strong a stance either way.
It is clear that you formed an initial negative impression of this individual based on your perception of their character. However, it is important to note that relying solely on instincts and subjective judgments may not provide an accurate assessment of someone’s true character. To assess a person objectively, it would be preferable to observe their actions and gather sufficient evidence before drawing any conclusions. Engaging in a fair and logical evaluation can lead to a more balanced understanding of an individual’s nature.
I strongly disagree with him, which suggests that either his intuition is mistaken or mine is. It’s also possible that we are both wrong, relying too heavily on emotions and assuming they are trustworthy, without fully comprehending the situation. This has led me to wonder how a Vulcan, and their logical reasoning, would approach this situation. Now if this comment sounds like an AI generated text, it is probably because it’s meant to mimic the logical thinking of a Vulcan. And also, that is the case, as it is AI generated.
Good catch, though.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
I was only vaguely aware of this guy. When he released his ratcheting driver gadget a while back, it popped up on a YT review channel that I do watch. Out of curiosity I looked into it.
This Linus guy immediately struck me as a weasel and a d-bag. I don’t have any super powers of observation. People should trust their instincts better. Human instincts are bad compared to animals, but one thing we’re all pretty naturally good at is detecting scumbags. Listen to your instincts, folks. His “charm” is as real as CheezWhiz.
You should see the WAN Show, their podcast. His co-host always looks nervous to say anything out of turn, they basically just read the next topic that Linus wants to talk about.
Or the time where Linus almost took Jake’s fingers out with a hole saw trying to drill holes in a RUNNING PC. Man’s a workplace hazard in more ways than one.
Trust me, you weren’t missing much.
Dang, what a menace! People will tolerate all kinds of abuse if they have an otherwise cool job. You see it all the time in sports and entertainment.
As someone who watches the WAN show semi-regularly, I do not get the same vibe from their relationship as you do
I am a semi-frequent WAN show watcher and I definitely get that vibe. Some people will say that Luke stands up to Linus, but from what I’ve seen it’s only superficial. I have never seen him push Linus enough that it becomes a real disagreement–not on an actual controversy like this, at least. The WAN show where they discussed the Billet Labs review is a perfect example: Luke says “well, maybe we should have re-tested” but then Linus goes off on his “$500 of employee time” tangent and Luke doesn’t call that out as completely ridiculous and hypocritical.
He does voice his disagreement, but not in a way that is going to change anything.
I wasn’t just talking about Luke, sometimes other folks stand in. Though yes Luke is most often the co-host, the show is structured such that Linus does a vast majority of the talking regardless of who else is there. Even Dan in the audio booth just curates and reads questions from chat.
Luke is always tossing him looks on the WAN show. I’m not sure how he hasn’t taken the hint by now.
100% against this. This attitude almost got ProJared canceled.
I firmly disagree with this post. People should not just “rely on their instincts,” which have proven time and again to be highly inaccurate and subject to bias. This is starting to look like what those “body language experts” do, and those people have lower accuracy than a coin toss in controlled experiments.
The only reliable way to tell if someone is lying is through actual evidence. What we know so far certainly paints LMG in a bad light, but I will continue to wait for more information to come out.
I agree, I always feel like the “I always knew X was a bad person” discourse that always pops up in the wake of this stuff indicates that like. Somehow you had more knowledge than anyone else about this. It’s basically just fueling your own ego as a result of a situation like this. You don’t know these people, what makes people feel like a gut instinct suffices as sufficiently damning evidence? Like, it’s fine to not like someone and abstain from engaging with them accordingly. That’s okay. But going “I always knew that he was bad” does no good.
Obviously listen to Madison, trust victims and support them (do note that this doesn’t mean not to listen to further developments and adjust your moral judgment accordingly, come what may) but that doesn’t mean to indulge yourself and over-justify your ability to judge someone you’ve never had an interaction with based on vibes alone, that’s a pretty unhealthy pattern to fall into in my opinion that has negative effects long term that don’t benefit anybody.
As I said, I have no super powers of observation and that everyone is born with good instincts on this. It’s taught in classes on protecting yourself from predators: believe your instincts.
I counter your argument with this: some people get heavily invested in internet celebs and in order to protect their own egos will gaslight themselves in to believing “nah, he’s a good guy”.
You’re not wrong that people will tie their sense of self up with internet celebrities and refrain from criticizing them accordingly but that doesn’t mean that instincts for someone whom you have ever met justify showing up to vindicate yourself in a thread like this. If you were a victim in a position like this, do you think seeing people say “oh I always knew he was bad” makes you feel any better for putting your faith in someone like this? Do you think that Linus, if he were innocent (not saying he is or isn’t I’m using it to illustrate a hypothetical) wants to see people saying they always thought he was a horrible person if this all shakes out in a way that absolves him of Madison’s abuse with LMG? Who does it benefit to say that you always knew someone was bad?
Trust your instincts, absolutely. You don’t need to engage with someone if you don’t think they’re good people. But saying “I KNEW” implies you had perfect information, it implies that you’re smarter than dozens of other people about how a situation like this would eventually resolve. That doesn’t benefit anybody, it’s better and more productive to go to the victims, support them, listen to them, and let them speak their piece because ultimately situations like this have to be about them, not about you and how you got a bad vibe from someone on a YouTube video or a Livestream or a few tweets.
You keep making this about ego or me trying to “sound smart” and it’s utterly exhausting because I’m trying to encourage others, not prop up myself. It’s simply not about my ego or self-esteem (no matter how badly you want that straw man to stand up). My entire point is that people should trust their instincts more than they do. And no, I’m not absolving him of any crimes by doing this (that’s more straw man).
Since you insist on projection, I’m going to indulge in some here. It sounds like you just want to engage in a virtue competition here, and you’re reading a lot of consequences and implications into what I said that, in my view, are simply not there. It’s not that I think everything you’re saying is wrong. It’s not. It’s just so twisted out of context and I have to ask myself why. Is Pixel arguing in bad faith in order to do what Pixel is accusing me of? Which is to look smart (or virtuous) on the internet? I don’t know, but the optics are pretty bad at this point.
I want to be clear I’m not blaming you specifically here, or I’m not trying to paint you as a bad actor intentionally. I’m saying that this trend of behavior is common around drama discourse, and I think it’s to the detriment of the situation overall. You’re free to act as you please, you’re free to think I’m virtue signaling, that’s fine and I’m not going to push on that. I’m just trying to use this as an illustration of something that I, as my own individual person, see as an issue surrounding this type of discourse and I wanted to make a point about it accordingly
Every pitchfork mob situation is about ego stroking ultimately. It’'s outgrouping, them vs us. And people with prejudices find it just so perfect to spew their bullshit and get some validation. It’s why racists love yellow media.
I don’t know the truth in this situation and for all I know this guy (and his entire crew for that matter) could be horrible people. But to base that off of prejudice is childish, and I’m sad that it’s infecting beehaw.
Evidence is better than instinct, no argument there. But you don’t always have access to evidence, and ignoring your instincts to jump on a fan bandwagon is ill advised.
I reject the framing of “ignoring your instincts” and “jumping on a fan bandwagon” as a dichotomy. You have the option to just do… neither of those things. Admit the limits of your own knowledge and avoid taking too strong a stance either way.
It is clear that you formed an initial negative impression of this individual based on your perception of their character. However, it is important to note that relying solely on instincts and subjective judgments may not provide an accurate assessment of someone’s true character. To assess a person objectively, it would be preferable to observe their actions and gather sufficient evidence before drawing any conclusions. Engaging in a fair and logical evaluation can lead to a more balanced understanding of an individual’s nature.
This reads like it was AI generated.
I strongly disagree with him, which suggests that either his intuition is mistaken or mine is. It’s also possible that we are both wrong, relying too heavily on emotions and assuming they are trustworthy, without fully comprehending the situation. This has led me to wonder how a Vulcan, and their logical reasoning, would approach this situation. Now if this comment sounds like an AI generated text, it is probably because it’s meant to mimic the logical thinking of a Vulcan. And also, that is the case, as it is AI generated. Good catch, though.
How dare you defame Cheez Whiz