[GG-TB] TotalBiscuit did a nice summary on the movement.

[BallGum]

Quote:

While I appreciate the calm tones I feel that this video does not give an accurate assessment of the situation and furthermore continues to push a harmful narrative that really doesn't seem to have too much basis in reality.

So it's important to really know the history behind it. The catalyst was a long post by an ex of an indie developer called Zoe Quinn. In this post, it alleged a conflict of interest between a Kotaku journalist and the developer. This information turned out to be inaccurate to a point, it alleged that the journalist (Nathan Grayson) had written a positive review of the game while in a romantic relationship with the developer. This is not true, however what is true is that Grayson wrote an article using Quinn as a source on March 31st of this year, regarding a game jam, in which he promoted her game. In "early April", the two began a romantic relationship. Editor in Chief at Kotaku Stephen Totilo claims he does not see a problem with this, since the romantic relationship began after the article was written, however many people including myself disagree, since it is unlikely that the relationship suddenly sprang out of nowhere and that a friendship was in place prior to this. I and many supporting Gamergate believe this should have been disclosed or that Grayson should have recused himself from writing this article. Kotaku disagrees. However, while this and many other examples of corruption and nepotism are core to what keeps Gamergate moving along, it wasn't even called Gamergate back then, it was called Quinnspiracy or later, Burgers and fries. These two names were abandoned because people wanted to disassociate with Zoe Quinn and any trolling and harassment that had gone on and focus on ethical issues. After 10+ articles were released in the course of one day, claiming "gamers are dead" and using hurtful and incendiary language to condemn the identity of many innocent people, #Gamergate exploded, after the term was coined by actor Adam Baldwin. It was a consumer backlash against anti-consumer articles. Many people felt angry and alienated by them and in my opinion rightfully so.

In the course of this, Anita Sarkeesian released her latest video and inserted herself into the discussion. She published alleged death threats from an anonymous internet troll and then decided to go on the offensive, repeatedly associating these threats with the entirity of those involved with Gamergate and getting directly involved in the hashtag by posting constantly negative attacks. She has nothing to do with journalistic ethics, however she inserted herself into the discussion. I personally have no doubt that she received these threats, death-threats are unfortunately very common online but I do doubt their credibility and who exactly sent them. We simply do not know. The problem with a hashtag is that there are no entry requirements. Anyone can post and claim to be associated with the movement, however it is leaderless and the actions of one person being tied to the entire movement seem fairly illogical and require some serious use of the guilt by association fallacy. In response to a one-sided narrative by the media, proclaiming all those involved to be misogynist, disgusting white male sexists, groups of those claiming to be part of Gamergate raised money for charity, hunted down and reported harassment efforts and even tracked down someone who had been sending Sarkeesian death-threats. Unfortunately Sarkeesian has refused to take this information and use it to press charges for some reason.

The idea that in order to discuss journalistic ethics you must disassociate yourself from harassment is a frustrating one. These people already tried that multiple times. They raised over $70,000 for a campaign by the Fine Young Capitalists to help women make videogames. Critics called it "weaponised charity". They raised money for anti-bullying causes after Gawker employee Sam Biddle, tweeted to his tens of thousands of followers that he endorsed the bullying of nerds. They changed hashtags twice to disassociate from harassment but what good does that do when the entire media is against them? Ashly, you say that we cannot talk about ethics until we stop harassing people. I say, we cannot talk about ethics because you won't stop talking about us allegedly harassing people. What is the first law of the internet? DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. By pushing this harassment narrative, you are giving these awful people victory and marginalizing the moderate majority who do want a serious conversation to happen about journalistic ethics. I would strongly urge you to come to the table and discuss ethical issues, freeze out those who would harass others, just as popular Gamergate forums like Kotakuinaction on Reddit have been doing for months. This industry has problems that need addressing but this is not the way to go about it. The longer the harassment narrative goes on, the worse this gets, the more frustrated alienated gamers of all races, genders, sexual orientations and creeds involved in this to improve their hobby and passion become.

Do we honestly believe this is an organized effort to drive women out of the industry? If that were true, why on earth would the targets be a controversial Youtube critic and two practically unknown indie developers? Wouldn't people be trying to drive out women of note in the industry who work at major studios and have real influence over the direction of games? If this is a harassment campaign aimed at driving women out of gaming, it is the single most unsuccessful one in the history of mankind.

Indeed, there is far more to this. Harassment has happened, I will not deny that, but it is not the responsibility of the moderate majority to apologise for the behavior of trolls. It is indeed partly the responsibility of the media for encouraging said trolls and rewarding their behavior. 

Yes, we want to talk about ethics. There are plenty of examples that need resolving. This all started with Nathan Graysons relationship, Kotaku believes he did nothing wrong, some of us disagree. Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku wrote glowing articles about developers she was close friends with and in one case, even lived with as a roommate. No apologies were given, disclosure was given retroactively. Said journalist also wrote an article accusing a card game developer (nothing to do with videogames btw) of rape and after he defended himself, complained that he hadnt done enough to start a positive conversation about "rape culture". This is a man who had a potentially life-destroying allegation held over his head and Kotaku had no issue writing about it and presuming his guilt. Danielle of Polygon gave Gone Home, a game which her friend was the sound designer of, a 10/10 perfect score, she did not disclose her relationship with said person. Destructoid reviewed Borderlands 2 for which the brother of Ashley Burch was a writer and also an ex-staff member of Destructoid. This was only disclosed much later when they fell under scrutiny, they had not thought to disclose it prior. A group called GamejournoPros with a large number of "competiting" journalists allegedly colluded to blacklist a journalist called Alistair Pinsof and also discussed sending letters of support and gifts to Zoe Quinn, clearly not realising the wall that should exist between subject and journalist. Indeed one of them even referred to her as a colleague. The release of so many articles proclaiming gamers dead on the same day raised questions of collusion that have yet to be answered. 

However, if you need real proof that this is about ethics, you need only look at the following. The Escapist, Polygon and Kotaku all revised their ethics policies soon after this began in direct response to it. IGN and various Youtubers have either published ethics codes or intend to do so. If this wasn't about ethics, why would you do that? 

I call on everyone to reject harassment in all its forms, but simultaneously realise that the few do not represent the many. Do not engage in guilt by association and instead treat people as people, not some labeled box of sub-humans online for you to attack and dismiss. Gamers are very much alive and they are more diverse than ever. It disturbs me greatly that anyone would claim otherwise or even worse, attack their identity. Gamers deserve better media, everyone deserves better media. Let's discuss how to make that happen and let's not indulge the whims of trolls and bigots.

Thought it would be good to share as he outlined the key issues very clearly.

[CatCloud]

Enough with the GG crap already. Why is this still going on!?

[BallGum]

Enough with the GG crap already. Why is this still going on!?

If you don't want to know about it, fine. But it's not crap; it's a real issue that needs addressing. And it's still going on because a lot of people remain ignorant about the whole thing.

[Jerakl]

<3 TB

[Kick]

[IdortMasterRace]

Enough with the GG crap already. Why is this still going on!?

 

Because despite your whining, it's actually a pretty important issue and not crap at all.

[cae]

Indeed, that was a nice summary.

[BallGum]

Hard to believe, I know.

[Kick]

Hard to believe, I know.

Oh child...

[CatCloud]

If you don't want to know about it, fine. But it's not crap; it's a real issue that needs addressing. And it's still going on because a lot of people remain ignorant about the whole thing.

Because despite your whining, it's actually a pretty important issue and not crap at all.

a real issue indeed, but it's just a common one that has been around forever, everywhere. Well I wish them luck but in the end nothing will change. It's like war, it's stupid but it's there and sadly won't go away because of people's different believes.

[IdortMasterRace]

a real issue indeed, but it's just a common one that has been around forever, everywhere. Well I wish them luck but in the end nothing will change. It's like war, it's stupid but it's there and sadly won't go away because of people's different believes.

 

It's already done a whole lot of good though. Kotaku, Rock Paper Shotgun, and other sites have changed their ethical policies. People have become aware to be aware our journalism corruption. Ads have been pulled from poor ethical sites, including ads from Intel. A fuck ton of money has been donated to charities from this. I could go on.

[DigitalHermit]

This clarifies everything...

[CatCloud]

It's already done a whole lot of good though. Kotaku, Rock Paper Shotgun, and other sites have changed their ethical policies. People have become aware to be aware our journalism corruption. Ads have been pulled from poor ethical sites, including ads from Intel. A fuck ton of money has been donated to charities from this. I could go on.

I missed the charity part... But that does wake the question: what for?

[IdortMasterRace]

I missed the charity part... But that does wake the question: what for?

 

Upon being accused of bullying and harassment, GG raised thousands for anti-bullying charities. Then when they were accused of pushing women out of the industry, they raised money for a charity that funds women game development to help them get into the industry. There's been a couple of others too I'm forgetting.

[kingkickolas]

Woo another gamergate thread!

[CatCloud]

Upon being accused of bullying and harassment, GG raised thousands for anti-bullying charities. Then when they were accused of pushing women out of the industry, they raised money for a charity that funds women game development to help them get into the industry. There's been a couple of others too I'm forgetting.

sound good on paper but it wakes more questions, what devs? Who actually get a slice of the cake? And doea a bit of cash even even help? How? Are the people so scard they can't leave there homes?

The plot thickens...

[DigitalHermit]

sound good on paper but it wakes more questions, what devs? Who actually get a slice of the cake? And doea a bit of cash even even help? How? Are the people so scard they can't leave there homes?

The plot thickens...

 

iirc it was for a "Game Jam" featuring female indie devs... Which was later crashed and scrapped by Sharkeesian's efforts... After the sabotaged failed game jam, she set up her own fundraiser for a "Rebel Jam" based on the same principle and ideals... The fundraiser is linked to her personal account... (src: Thunderf00t narration... yes it's polarized.. I haven't done enough research in this area of gamergate)

 

When it comes to death threats over the web, shouldn't people take it with a grain of salt, unless it was a serious aggravated threat?

[cae]

When it comes to death threats over the web, shouldn't people take it with a grain of salt, unless it was a serious aggravated threat?

 

If I had an interest in stopping, or at least minimizing the volume of threats received, I would not then give the aggressor a podium and say "Look at this man! Look at his threats and know that he exists!" What better way to attract a mob of scum than to acknowledge their efforts? It's exactly why you don't feed trolls. The rules don't change for any threats perceived as legitimate either. Notify authorities, maintain your safety, but don't broadcast doing so, or the reasons for doing so!

[DigitalHermit]

If I had an interest in stopping, or at least minimizing the volume of threats received, I would not then give the aggressor a podium and say "Look at this man! Look at his threats and know that he exists! What better way to attract a mob of scum than to acknowledge their efforts? It's exactly why you don't feed trolls. The rules don't change for any threats perceived as legitimate either. Notify authorities, maintain your safety, but don't broadcast doing so, or the reasons for doing so!

 

You said it...

 

Another solution I thought of is relocation... secretly (not broadcasting where you are)... Nothing says safety like disappearing from your general area for a while...

 

Also, this is the internet... Who knows if the threats are real, empty, or fabricated... Impostor/dupe accounts are easy to make...

[IdortMasterRace]

Maximum lel.

 

[Yoinkerman]

When it comes to death threats over the web, shouldn't people take it with a grain of salt, unless it was a serious aggravated threat?

Not really, if we don't stigmatize that kind of behavior all over the Internet to the point where it's driven way underground we're going to lose the freedom and anonymity the Internet provides, in the name of protecting bullied/threatened/etc people. It's already happening.

[Jaybird]

[IdortMasterRace]

 

[DigitalHermit]

Not really, if we don't stigmatize that kind of behavior all over the Internet to the point where it's driven way underground we're going to lose the freedom and anonymity the Internet provides, in the name of protecting bullied/threatened/etc people. It's already happening.

 

Not that way... You do know about this copypasta, right?

 

The lines "I keel yu" and "1v1 me IRL" can be considered as baseless... I mean, lines like these are being thrown about regularly...

 

Legit threats have a different, more serious tone to them and they usually show telltale signs if they're dead serious...

 

A question that arises from this is how do they differentiate? (yes it's a basic question, yet  a deep one from my perspective).. Do they report even the lightest of empty taunts to the authorities, or do they only report the more serious ones (later to broadcast that the threat has been reported and that they are under protection, which can further aggravate the situation)?

[Yoinkerman]

Not that way... You do know about this copypasta, right?

 

The lines "I keel yu" and "1v1 me IRL" can be considered as baseless... I mean, lines like these are being thrown about regularly...

 

Legit threats have a different, more serious tone to them and they usually show telltale signs if they're dead serious...

 

A question that arises from this is how do they differentiate? (yes it's a basic question, yet  a deep one from my perspective).. Do they report even the lightest of empty taunts to the authorities, or do they only report the more serious ones (later to broadcast that the threat has been reported and that they are under protection, which can further aggravate the situation)?

 

As real life and internet life converge, the differentiation matters less and less.  You don't go to someone's house or business or whatever in real life and shout the kind of garbage anyone semi famous puts up with on an everyday basis, it's not ok to do it because it's "on the internet".  People are crazy and famous people have been harassed, hurt, and killed over less.