Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kala]

People get awfully buck anonymously online, but put a real name and a face attached to things and it does a remarkable job of toning things down. (usually).

Those people who told Sarkeesian she should be raped, or were going to murder her, all have mothers, or sisters, or daughters, and maybe they should know what the men in their lives are saying.   Perhaps a good project for some +10 lawful good hackers out there.

Interestingly, there was a story recently(ish) where a woman found out her husband of six years did some fairly nasty reddit trolling on the quiet to 'unwind'.  She was pregnant.  They broke up over it.

I'm a bit conflicted really, as I know the internet in many places is a hive of scum and villainy, but in other ways remains true to its utopian aims - things like Wikipedia, open source stuff etc.

I know it lends itself to faceless mobbing, but I wouldn't like anonymity online to go entirely...I'm a fairly private person in real life, so I'd probably be more reticent to speak out on things at all.  I'm not on facebook or anything, and try and keep my online footprint small.

But then again, if doxxing is a thing, and people can find out my real life identity anyway if they've a strong enough need or want, what's the point anyways?

[Silas Vitalia]

Perhaps we should ultimately be able to stay 'anonymous' but with a singular identity that is constant.

So you can be Jane Doe 5569, but that anonymous identity follows you from online portal to online portal, for banning purposes or warning, etc.

There has to be a way to remove people and stop them from just creating a new acct with a different name, as is often the case with twitter trolls, etc.

That, or the 'google mail' style AI spam filtering will get intelligent enough that we just won't be exposed to such things.   I must get 100's of spam emails a day but I wouldn't know it.

[Esna Pitoojee]

As far as I knew, the issue which blew up bad was not at all about the original accusations re: Zoe Quinn and her boyfriends. That was a legitimate debate in its own right, and for the most part proceeded calmly and seemed to be more about gaming journalism than Quinn (to quote someone in another thread on the topic, "if this is true it reflects far worse on the boyfriends and the establishments they work for than on [Zoe Quinn] herself, who may not have even done anything wrong.")

The issue was that when the story began to circulate, pressure was placed on several sites to suppress discussion of the topic or outright silence criticism of the situation for various dubious reasons, most of which were based around the idea that it wasn't fair to include Zoe Quinn in the discussion (which ignores, in my opinion, that at the time the discussion was still more about gaming journlism than Zoe Quinn herself.

Simultaneously, Zoe Quinn made the poor choice to issue several baseless DMCA copyright takedowns against people criticizing her and the situation, triggering a full-on case of the Streisand Effect. The most well-known example of this is was a video which she tried to have taken down because it "used a screenshot from her game" - the screenshot in question being an image of the game's publicly viewable web page.

People, of course, reacted rather poorly to this. This is when the "Us vs Them" narrative began to sink in, and the discussion slipped from "let's have a talk about issues of corruption in gaming journalism" to "OMG Gamers/4chan/ZQuinn/Tumblr [Pick One] are the devil!" Of course the loudest (and nastiest) voices got the most coverage, which only reinforced the Us-vs-Them narrative. By the time Sarkessian made the stepped into the fray, it was long since past the point for a wide-scale coherent discussion. I'm not sure why people latched on to her amid dozens of others saying similar things.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Difficulty is that to do that it would have to be tied to your irl identity which leaves you open to doxxing. No the only real solution is to call out each and every shitheel separately and openly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mizhara]

It should also be noted that her game wasn't even remotely close to being greenlighted until she false flagged harassment claims against herself from a rather ridiculous image board that had nothing to do with her or gaming. Then suddenly the sympathy votes rolled in. Zoe Quinn may be the target of a lot of harassment, but she has also quite demonstrably been cynically using it for all it's worth and even faked it in at least one case.

[Kala]

It should also be noted that her game wasn't even remotely close to being greenlighted until she false flagged harassment claims against herself from a rather ridiculous image board that had nothing to do with her or gaming. Then suddenly the sympathy votes rolled in. Zoe Quinn may be the target of a lot of harassment, but she has also quite demonstrably been cynically using it for all it's worth and even faked it in at least one case.

Would you mind linking to somewhere verifying re: she faked her own harassment?
Haven't been able to find anything on it, apart from things like these, which looks somewhat dubious to me

http://gamergateharrassment.tumblr.com/post/96243319717/http-i-imgur-com-e8kfmnu-png-everyone-boost-the
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwZIfMzCUAAjMAN.jpg:large

obviously she herself has denied it.

[Mizhara]

Those things are more recent. This was back before the whole Quinngate shite started and she was still trying to get her Depression Quest greenlighted and while I usually prefer being rigid about sources I just can't be arsed going back through several weeks of browsing history to find it in the middle of this particular shitstorm.

In short, she claimed she was being harassed by an obscure little image board catering to a fairly pathetic group of misfits just as it looked like her game wouldn't get greenlit. Tumblr/SJWs to the rescue, resulting in a staggering amount of greenlight votes in just hours. When the image board (I really wish I remembered the name) was perused by more level heads, it turns out none of them were even remotely interested in the game or Zoe Quinn and was mostly surprised to realize other people even knew they existed.

I can't recall all the details, but the research done on this event looked entirely convincing to me. Of course, you are entirely free to dismiss this as I really can't back it up without spending hours diving into a septic tank of horseshit to find the nugget, which I frankly can't be arsed to do.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Considering that the internet decided that a gigantic rant posted by her ex boyfriend was gospel unquestioned truth I think skepticism about sources is justified


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shiori]

In short, she claimed she was being harassed by an obscure little image board catering to a fairly pathetic group of misfits just as it looked like her game wouldn't get greenlit.

Ah, yes. Wizardchan! The -chan ain't there for show, too; it's a chip off the ole 4chan block.

Tumblr/SJWs to the rescue, resulting in a staggering amount of greenlight votes in just hours. When the image board (I really wish I remembered the name) was perused by more level heads, it turns out none of them were even remotely interested in the game or Zoe Quinn and was mostly surprised to realize other people even knew they existed.

I can't recall all the details, but the research done on this event looked entirely convincing to me.

Don't doubt it, since you're already assuming guilt. All the stuff I see looks like images cooked up by *chan-ers proving *chan-ers are on the side of the angels. It's a page out of the anti-Sarkeesian playbook, too; accuse the victim of faking or exaggerating harassment so you can justify further harassment!

Not even touching the 'woman fishing for attention/sympathy/Steam upvotes for Depression Quest' narrative. It's not like she gets a cut from the latter, anyway.

[Mizhara]

Where am I assuming guilt? I looked at the information given and found it rather compelling, while the claims that Wizardchan had harassed Zoe Quinn looked rather unconvincing. You on the other hand seem to take the claim of harassment as gospel without any sort of evidence presented. I haven't seen anyone try to make out any *chan look like angels, least of all themselves.

You may not want to touch it, but the timing is hilariously suspect. Whenever they need a publicity boost, there's a claim of harassment or abuse including a lot of claims of being hacked etc and yet any sort of evidence mysteriously fail to materialize every damn time.

4chan etc causes a lot of shit out there, but pretending the cynical mobilization of the tumblrinas blubbering over their keyboards doesn't happen does no one any favors.

[Kala]

Sooo...
That's Jenn Frank out.

https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBgkaHR0cDovL3B1dS5zaC9kL2JrWEg1LzA3YjRlN2ZmYmEuanBnFPgIFOASABYAEgA&s=oP_m6I6lxFXs1kLG_uMfLl6_ulgPHgZvSqQPXKCOurc

https://twitter.com/ToneDeezy/status/507407945064136705/photo/1

She wrote a Guardian Article on this.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games

I think she kind of knew doing that might get her targeted.

It has a disclaimer here "Jenn Frank has purchased and is a supporter of Zoë Quinn’s work, although this is the first article she has written on the developer. Frank has also briefly met Anita Sarkeesian."  That wasn't there originally.  Some people were quick to accuse her of corruption.

However, she pointed out:

Recently I wrote a piece for The Guardian. Some of you wondered—on this blog, on Twitter, at the Guardian, on discrete forums and image boards, and in our inboxes—why the article, as it first appeared, did not disclose a relationship with Ms. Quinn.

The Guardian actually nixed the disclosure of my relationship with Ms. Quinn, simply because it didn’t strike editors or legal—that is, The Guardian’s legal department, which approved the final draft—as a “conflict of interest” in an op/ed about abuse. The publication determined the disclosure I provided didn’t matter, since my piece is not a review of her work, but a 500-word blog about Internet harassment.

In my disclosure’s original draft, I mention that I have never reviewed one of Quinn’s games (or, ever before, written about her at all) and that I am a supporter of her work. The Guardian piece, at my request, has been updated with brief remarks to that effect.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

http://infinitelives.net/2014/09/01/regarding-the-conflict-of-interest-in-my-latest-piece/#sthash.l1EO0YfW.dpuf

What.
The.
Fuck.

Apparently she was also reported on by Al Jeezera as an example of corruption, but it looks like they changed their minds (or fact checked) as that seems to be edited now.

Has the world gone nuts?

As someone mentioned "Imagine campaigning against corruption but targeting Jenn Frank and leaving Intent/IGN/Future management alone." 

[Silas Vitalia]

What part of "tumblrinas blubbering over their keyboards" did I get wrong?

It's dismissive by gender, and a generally offensive term and sentence.  Language matters, and your word choice reflects your diminutive opinion of those 'blubbering' women.  You think little of them and you chose a word that demeans them. Did I get that wrong?

Being 'overly emotional ' is a pretty par for the course criticism used to minimize the opinions of women for many years.  You're welcome to think their opinions are shit, but let's own it. 

Ergo my reply.


 

[Lyn Farel]

Ah, at last, thanks for explaining what this was all about.

[Mizhara]

It's got shit all to do with women. Bloody hell, even Phil Fish is a blubbering Tumblrina and I doubt he's a woman. Tumblrina is a term encompassing the entire spectrum of overly emotional extremist SJWs that frequently swarm and attack anything that doesn't fall squarely in their own camp, named as such due to Tumblr being the primary source of these people pretty much the same as 4chan being the primary source of blunderbuss bullshit by entitled teenage shits.

It's dismissive of a subset of a community, no different from how above posters dismiss anything with *chan attached to it. I didn't see you start rewriting their posts.

[Morwen Lagann]

[mod]Thread locked for, among other things, excessive ad hominem, personal attacks, and the associated derailing effect that comes with them - the odds of this thread going anywhere but further downhill seem incredibly low, but we'll see whether it's going into the bin outright or being pruned.

Warnings and/or further punishments may be handed out to some participants in this thread after moderator discussion. Most of you should know better.[/mod]