Support NeoGAF

[Wickerbasket]

Not only do we know as a matter of fact that ignoring GG emboldens them to action, we have no evidence that condemnation doesn't work because no one ever tries to do it. GG may want to do horrible things, GG may be a group of horrible people, but these horrible people like to be able to pretend that they're good. Members of GG have IIRC donated in the six figures to charity, with the sole intention of creating good PR. Condemnation tells potential new members that they shouldn't join the group, and it tells the victims of the group - the people who most want to see GG condemned - that the industry is at least doing SOMETHING, even if it is lip service.

Ignoring all of that though, there are tons of things that the industry could do. Push anti-harassment laws, be more strict about harassment on their consoles/games, put money into creating diversity in the industry, and make a formal statement that terrorist threats will not be acknowledged or acted upon.

All of this sounds like great ideas, but again, it can be really hard, if not impossible, to track down the people causing the harassment. The only half solution is making an example of the stupid ones that get caught, but that doesn't solve the problem.

There are already anti-harassment laws in place where I live, and it's almost impossible to track down a perpetrator online unless they have something stupid like their facebook attached.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but putting token laws in place and making empty statements isn't the way. The only way the community will become less toxic is if the silent majority start speaking out against it. The problem with that is that no one wants to become a target themselves.

 

[John Kowalski]

This is what I don't fully understand. Yes she was fired, but it wasn't because of any views she had that her harassers thought were deplorable and it didn't cause Nintendo to do anything with regards to how they localize games, so how did this legitimize them or count as a "win"?

Her being fired was because of their actions, and I can understand that, but it wasn't for any of the reasons they argued for. If this is a group that supposedly believes they're fighting for a righteous cause, then this wouldn't have really counted as anything, would it?

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around what GG even thinks they're fighting for

You're giving the harassers too much good credit, their arguments were just a means to an end, their way of harassing this particular victim. Like on many of instances of online harassment by this particular group, they are not trying to defend or establish values or ethical principles, they just want to harass people.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

This is what I don't fully understand. Yes she was fired, but it wasn't because of any views she had that her harassers thought were deplorable and it didn't cause Nintendo to do anything with regards to how they localize games, so how did this legitimize them or count as a "win"?

Her being fired was because of their actions, and I can understand that, but it wasn't for any of the reasons they argued for. If this is a group that supposedly believes they're fighting for a righteous cause, then this wouldn't have really counted as anything, would it?

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around what GG even thinks they're fighting for

If GG had a superpower, it would be the ability to readjust reality to fit their own perception. They don't really care about details, as far as their concerned, if the person they target suffers, it's a win, regardless of context. Hell, these are the people who somehow interpreted Colbert's segment making fun of GG to one where he was attacking one of their chief targets.

Also, it would take an incredibly mechanical and context free viewing of Alison's firing to not tie it to GG. The entire reason she was under the microscope to begin with was due to their harassment. Similarly, none of the tactics they used against her are new; anyone who has followed this would recognise the same tactics were used against all their female targets.

 

[Ridley327]

And she shouldn't delete anything. Twitter, facebook, etc should be deleting all those accounts that attack her and others.

Wouldn't you be dealing with a veritable digital hydra at that point, though? Cutting off some heads won't stop new ones from growing in their place.

 

[A Link to the Past]

All of this sounds like great ideas, but again, it can be really hard, if not impossible, to track down the people causing the harassment. The only half solution is making an example of the stupid ones that get caught, but that doesn't solve the problem.

There are already anti-harassment laws in place where I live, and it's almost impossible to track down a perpetrator online unless they have something stupid like their facebook attached.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but putting token laws in place and making empty statements isn't the way. The only way the community will become less toxic is if the silent majority start speaking out against it. The problem with that is that no one wants to become a target themselves.

I talked about much more than anti-harassment laws, and in fact only talked about anti-harassment laws for a portion of a sentence. There are plenty of simple things that the industry can do, and plenty of complicated things that the industry has the responsibility to do.

 

[SeanTSC]

I don't want these old folks in the government, especially in the US, doing much on laws for the internet. I'm sorry but these folks don't understand the internet and will likely make things worse.

The biggest hurdle in America is the first amendment.

Also, you Swatting thing will never happen lmao. You expect the government to admit their security forces are too violent? Come on. Swatting should be punishable by at least 5-10 years in prison.

10 years is pretty substantial for Attempted Murder, so I'd be okay with that.

And no one is too old to be educated. I certainly do want the people there right now to learn about it and make appropriate laws. I don't have that much of a lack of faith in them.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

But since gamergate is apparently just a hashtag movement, how can you attribute some idiots making death threats/harassment as part of the movement itself? Maybe these are just idiots that people roll in to the agenda of gamergate to demonize them further?

Im just being a devils advocate, because I know I've been generalized before for being part of a group just because my opinion was similar to them

For the record, I think digging up people's dirty laundry is terrible because we all have it. Not fair at all, but at the same time I try to be rational in these conversations about who exactly is to blame. Blaming a hashtag movement just feels so vague to me and there's literally no way to combat it like that.

If someone makes a death threat, that specific person should be investigated and taken down for being a dick.

"Devils advocate." Sure.

C'mon man, don't make me associate Ryuko with this shit.

 

[PopeReal]

Wouldn't you be dealing with a veritable digital hydra at that point, though? Cutting off some heads won't stop new ones from growing in their place.

So what? That is their (Twitter, etc) problem.

They continue to give a platform for hate and harassment. Not going to feel sorry for them for allowing the monster to get so big.

 

[UncleSporky]

And she shouldn't delete anything. Twitter, facebook, etc should be deleting all those accounts that attack her and others.

How do you define an account that attacked her? There are plenty of people who might just see the news and have a superficial, one-time negative reaction or statement to make who weren't part of the organized harrassers.

How do you determine the ones who were part of the organized front? Do you count the number of posts that appear to be disparaging towards her and after it reaches 10, you ban them?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Wouldn't you be dealing with a veritable digital hydra at that point, though? Cutting off some heads won't stop new ones from growing in their place.

But it would be a start. Twitter and Facebook do a pretty miserable job keeping certain people off of its websites.

 

[Orca]

Wouldn't you be dealing with a veritable digital hydra at that point, though? Cutting off some heads won't stop new ones from growing in their place.

It's like every time someone here gets banned for doing the "gee is Gamergate really that bad... What if it's just people saying they're part of Gamergate... I'm a devils advocate..." stuff and another three show up in the next thread.

It's still worth banning those people.

 

[PopeReal]

How do you define an account that attacked her? There are plenty of people who might just see the news and have a superficial, one-time negative reaction or statement to make who weren't part of the organized harrassers.

How do you determine the ones who were part of the organized front? Do you count the number of posts that appear to be disparaging towards her and after it reaches 10, you ban them?

It is not rocket science.

 

[Stallion Dan]

So people talking about the legality of this and making it illegal.

What about journalists who investigate and dig into peoples private lives using public as well as personal info, including their families, to for example expose them as a crook or liar. The end result being they're exposed and their lives suffer as a result.

It's the same thing only this is widely accepted. Look at it from a legal perspective, not a moral one. How can this realistically be made illegal without all sorts of ramifications where not intended?

I know doxing is illegal, I mean the rest of it, legally digging up info and spreading that info.

Also please note I'm not commenting on if it should/shouldn't be illegal, I'm asking how can it possibly be made illegal.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

This is what I don't fully understand. Yes she was fired, but it wasn't because of any views she had that her harassers thought were deplorable and it didn't cause Nintendo to do anything with regards to how they localize games, so how did this legitimize them or count as a "win"?

Her being fired was because of their actions, and I can understand that, but it wasn't for any of the reasons they argued for. If this is a group that supposedly believes they're fighting for a righteous cause, then this wouldn't have really counted as anything, would it?

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around what GG even thinks they're fighting for

Their mission was to get Allison to lose her job at Nintendo. She did end up losing her job because of their actions. So they count it a win.

 

[Ridley327]

It's like every time someone here gets banned for doing the "gee is Gamergate really that bad... What if it's just people saying they're part of Gamergate... I'm a devils advocate..." stuff and another three show up in the next thread.

It's still worth banning those people.

I don't know, it just seems like putting a band-aid on a freshly limbless stump to me. You're dealing with a kind of ideology in this situation, which isn't going to go away when you ban one account on services where it's so easy to create another, and then another, and then another still.

 

[A Link to the Past]

So people talking about the legality of this and making it illegal.

What about journalists who investigate and dig into peoples private lives using public as well as personal info, including their families, to for example expose them as a crook or liar. The end result being they're exposed and their lives suffer as a result.

It's the same thing only this is widely accepted. Look at it from a legal perspective, not a moral one. How can this realistically be made illegal without all sorts of ramifications where not intended?

I know doxing is illegal, I mean the rest of it, legally digging up info and spreading that info.

Killing another person is very often illegal, yet there are situations where it is not. The ramifications are overplayed because you can apply a sensible approach to prosecuting such cases. A member of GG being prosecuted is not going to make a journalist prosecuted, because the former has obviously ill intent.

 

[UncleSporky]

It's like every time someone here gets banned for doing the "gee is Gamergate really that bad... What if it's just people saying they're part of Gamergate... I'm a devils advocate..." stuff and another three show up in the next thread.

It's still worth banning those people.

GAF is a very specialized site, it runs itself differently than Twitter and Facebook. People have their entire lives on those sites, might almost require them to function. What if this whole thing is off their radar and they make an offhand comment about a public news story they read? You can't go banning people left and right from major sites like that.

 

[Principate]

Their mission was to get Allison to lose her job at Nintendo since they believed she was the reason for localizations they didn't like. She did end up losing her job because of their actions. So they count it a win.

But it's complete bullshit, 1 second of self awareness would tell them that Rapp, the avodocate of the views she has on CP, championing of sex positivity, and making the asinsine assumption the the worst case scenario's of her second job are correct. There no way in fucking hell she had anything to do with their original claims. Like not one single bit. She's the type of person they'd be better if she stayed at Nintendo considering their "cause".

The only logical reason for their takedown would be that she' a women and an outspoken feminist. Everything else is moronic.

 

[Salamando]

But it would be a start. Twitter and Facebook do a pretty miserable job keeping certain people off of its websites.

It's a very hard problem to solve. Not just with Gamergate, but also with terrorist organizations that regularly kill people (you know the ones).

Twitter in particular IS trying to do something. They utilize sentiment analysis of tweets as well as network analysis of followers/followed to establish a similarity rating of an account to previously known terrorist accounts. Their primary weaknesses - time to establish a baseline thta can be used for comparison, and the ease of account creation.

In gamergate's case, the situation is more complex. There's no official GG account and GG isn't trying to broadcast to the world. Just the intended harassee. It's as the poster said, they're fighting a digital hydra.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I talked about much more than anti-harassment laws, and in fact only talked about anti-harassment laws for a portion of a sentence. There are plenty of simple things that the industry can do, and plenty of complicated things that the industry has the responsibility to do.

The only feasible solution you supplied was to "put money into creating diversity in the industry" which the industry already does, so I'm sorry if I didn't pick apart every point, but the things you're listing aren't as simple as you believe.

It would be great to have unlimited man power to moderate every conversation online, but it's unrealistic. It would be great if they would ignore information gathered from targeted campaigns against individuals, but it's unrealistic, they have to act on the information they know. Plenty of company and developers do condemn the actions of the GG movements, but GG don't care, expecting harassers to stop harassing because you disapprove is unrealistic.

The gaming industry isn't the first industry to have a problem dealing with online harassment, it's a big focus for the police right now in the UK and they're having a tough time dealing with it.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions, I'm just saying that no one's came up with one that works yet and it's not for lack of trying.

 

[Somnid]

Well kinda glad they are talking more about the issues and tactics involved here. Getting into the the particulars of this incident is not important, counter-productive and really just dragging Allison out to be someone's martyr. The problem is this idea that you can campaign to get people fired and really if you dig deep enough you'll find dirt. More troubling is people pointing fingers at just Gamergate, they do not seem to see when this happens to other people, perhaps much more disagreeable ones with bad opinions. In my mind even things like this whole North Carolina business siege work the same way, it's a new tactic that people perhaps mistakenly think is going to be for good because at least this particular issue seems just but eventually the other side will start playing the same game. It happened with people asking for protections and safe-spaces, the other side does the same thing and claims religious intolerance and that they need protections and pass nasty bills with it. People need to be mindful of the tactics they use and how those in turn can and will be misused in the future, it's not just the platform you choose to stand on. Generally anything powered by anger, hatred or schadenfreude is probably not an appropriate means to deal with issues.

 

[Silver Arrows]

I don't know, it just seems like putting a band-aid on a freshly limbless stump to me. You're dealing with a kind of ideology in this situation, which isn't going to go away when you ban one account on services where it's so easy to create another, and then another, and then another still.

Most of the time, those who get banned on GAF for trying to be the devil's advocate will go to their holes on 8chan, KiA and will proudly proclaim "I got banned by the evil mods of NeoGAF for trying to spread the truth about those devil spawn women!"

 

[PopeReal]

GAF is a very specialized site, it runs itself differently than Twitter and Facebook. People have their entire lives on those sites, might almost require them to function. What if this whole thing is off their radar and they make an offhand comment about a public news story they read? You can't go banning people left and right from major sites like that.

Are you honestly telling me that if Twitter had employees actually moderate the site that these employees couldn't tell the difference between someone making an offhand comment about a news story and someone targeting and harassing someone?

Come on man. We are just people hanging out on Gaf and we could deal with it. It is not that difficult of a thing to comprehend.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

GAF is a very specialized site, it runs itself differently than Twitter and Facebook. People have their entire lives on those sites, might almost require them to function. What if this whole thing is off their radar and they make an offhand comment about a public news story they read? You can't go banning people left and right from major sites like that.

That's not what's happening here. These are people who pass these rumors around with the clear intent to harm/harass this woman. They also have the history attacking women or at least are publicly affiliated with a hate group that does.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The only feasible solution you supplied was to "put money into creating diversity in the industry" which the industry already does, so I'm sorry if I didn't pick apart every point, but the things you're listing aren't as simple as you believe.

It would be great to have unlimited man power to moderate every conversation online, but it's unrealistic. It would be great if they would ignore information gathered from targeted campaigns against individuals, but it's unrealistic, they have to act on the information they know. Plenty of company and developers do condemn the actions of the GG movements, but GG don't care, expecting harassers to stop harassing because you disapprove is unrealistic.

The gaming industry isn't the first industry to have a problem dealing with online harassment, it's a big focus for the police right now in the UK and they're having a tough time dealing with it.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions, I'm just saying that no one's came up with one that works yet and it's not for lack of trying.

You can talk about these things not being simple, but "not for a lack of trying"? On the contrary, the best way to describe the industry's response to GG and GG-like behaviour is "lack of trying." We've seen Microsoft, EA, and Blizzard engage in behaviour that punished victims simply because it was easier than stopping the harassment.

 

[akira28]

Most of the time, those who get banned on GAF for trying to be the devil's advocate will go to their holes on 8chan, KiA and will proudly proclaim "I got banned by the evil mods of NeoGAF for trying to spread the truth about those devil spawn women!"

or "for trying to speak the truth against facist political correctness. Of course I was censored! in prison for borking"

 

[Zipzo]

"Devils advocate." Sure.

C'mon man, don't make me associate Ryuko with this shit.

Is it fair to assume that because I'm trying to understand the situation and don't immediately jump to condemnation that I'm just "another one"? I think it's pretty judgmental to imply so harshly that I must be a gamergater, when I openly admitted to knowing close to nothing about them. Even at this moment I'm trying to read about them while posting to get a better understanding of what exactly is the culprit we should be targeting.

The difficulty I'm having is based on the facts I know currently...

1. Gamergate is a hashtag movement
2. This title is applied to the movement of digging up some notable female faces in the gaming industry, and/or hating them with death threats and other unacceptable actions for things they aren't responsible for, or that the movement thinks they are responsible for (such as Allison Rapp being responsible for censorship or something.).

If there's anything I'm missing here, let me know.

Based on those two facts, I find it hard to address a "culprit" and take action. What I'm trying to say is, we should be focusing on taking down people individually, instead of blaming a "movement" that is essentially unstoppable in the sense that...well, we can't really do anything about a "movement". If you think inversely from the point of view of a high religious person in a southern state during the LGBT movement, how powerless do you believe they felt during the rise of progressive thinking? That's kind of how powerless we are to something like gamergate...all we can do is target the small fries and pick them off.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, ETC, should be upping their game significantly towards hate-comments. ESPECIALLY ones that could be interpreted as death threats.

Do you get what I mean? I'm saying that blaming a movement has, for a time, felt like it just doesn't get us anywhere with dealing with the problem. As people in this thread before me have stated, it's almost like we're ignoring it and it just festers, we can blame a hashtag forever or we can get our hands dirty and start hunkering down on these jerks.

Unfortunately we do need some kind of censorship of free speech online, I think. In a weird way.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Killing another person is very often illegal, yet there are situations where it is not. The ramifications are overplayed because you can apply a sensible approach to prosecuting such cases. A member of GG being prosecuted is not going to make a journalist prosecuted, because the former has obviously ill intent.

A GG member posts info as a journalist with the 'intent' to just report news, can be to some shitty blog, it doesn't matter. Rest of GG complain to a company or whever based on that info. How is this any different to what more credible journalists actions and the response is?

 

[UncleSporky]

It is not rocket science.

I think it's far more difficult than you make it out to be.

What if the primary harrassers weren't anyone who said anything negative on twitter, but merely teased out new tweets about her college thesis, so they'd have stuff to screenshot and pass around? "Hey, I stumbled across this, could you clarify your position," do you ban that person?

What if the people who did most of the detective work and sent the info to Nintendo don't even tweet at all, and let the reactions to news stories do the work for them?

 

[PopeReal]

I think it's far more difficult than you make it out to be.

What if the primary harrassers weren't anyone who said anything negative on twitter, but merely teased out new tweets about her college thesis, so they'd have stuff to screenshot and pass around? "Hey, I stumbled across this, could you clarify your position," do you ban that person?

What if the people who did most of the detective work and sent the info to Nintendo don't even tweet at all, and let the reactions to news stories do the work for them?

What if?

No one even tries. That is the point. Figure this shit out.

 

[A Link to the Past]

A GG member posts info as a journalist with the 'intent' to just report news, can be to some shitty blog, it doesn't matter. Rest of GG complain to a company or whever based on that info. How is this any different to what more credible journalists actions and the response is?

Well I mean if a journalist is a member of a terrorist group that routinely threatens to murder and rape people, then for sure, it's a pretty similar situation. I don't know that any journalist who considers themselves a member of such a group has any cause to be considered a victim if such a law affected them however.

 

[Joyful]

Gamergates harassment is disgusting, trying to have rapp fired for some dumbass reasons like her being female and having semi controversial opinions on things.
But its clear Nintendo knew about her second job before gamergate did and responded accordingly. Cant have that kind of side job and work at a company that markets to kids, it just looks bad.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Gamergates harassment is disgusting, trying to have rapp fired for some dumbass reasons like her being female and having semi controversial opinions on things.
But its clear Nintendo knew about her second job before gamergate did and responded accordingly. Cant have that kind of side job and work at a company that markets to kids, it just looks bad.

Didn't need the second part.
Really didn't.

 

[Wickerbasket]

You can talk about these things not being simple, but "not for a lack of trying"? On the contrary, the best way to describe the industry's response to GG and GG-like behaviour is "lack of trying."

It's not their job to deal with harassers, it's the police forces and they do try but they've got limited methods at their disposal.

I honestly don't know what you think the industry could do to prevent a bunch of anonymous assholes from harassing people. It's been happening since the beginning of the internet, except now they're more organised and harder to track down.

The industry already host events for diversity and developers are trying to be inclusive while making games, but that just seems to piss off these people more.

 

[PopeReal]

Gamergates harassment is disgusting, trying to have rapp fired for some dumbass reasons like her being female and having semi controversial opinions on things.
But its clear Nintendo knew about her second job before gamergate did and responded accordingly. Cant have that kind of side job and work at a company that markets to kids, it just looks bad.

You don't know what her side job was. This type of shit just continues.

 

[UncleSporky]

What if?

No one even tries. That is the point. Figure this shit out.

Do you ban that person or not?

You make it seem so easy and straightforward. It's not.

If this is such a simple thing, why is GG considered so nebulous? Nobody can ever point at a single person and say "that's the guy who did this." They organize themselves that way on purpose.

For all you know they have thousands of sock puppet accounts all doing one single drive-by harassment post, and can spin up a hundred more after any of them get banned.

I should make it clear I'm not defending them at all, just being realistically defeatist. Twitter can't do a thing.

 

[Hubble]

It is terrible. Nintendo had a golden opportunity to take a stand for gamers and wasted it.

 

[Joyful]

Didn't need the second part.
Really didn't.

Sorry I meant to just post "fuck gamergate."

You don't know what her side job was. This type of shit just continues.

The point is nintendo knew before gamergate

 

[RichiRamjag]

It's not their job to deal with harassers, it's the police forces and they do try but they've got limited methods at their disposal.

I honestly don't know what you think the industry could do to prevent a bunch of anonymous assholes from harassing people. It's been happening since the beginning of the internet, except now they're more organised and harder to track down.

The industry already host events for diversity and developers are trying to be inclusive while making games, but that just seems to piss off these people more.

This is honestly just becoming a repeat of the last two threads in regards to speaking points.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Gamergates harassment is disgusting, trying to have rapp fired for some dumbass reasons like her being female and having semi controversial opinions on things.
But its clear Nintendo knew about her second job before gamergate did and responded accordingly. Cant have that kind of side job and work at a company that markets to kids, it just looks bad.

"I don't like X and what they did, but Y deserved it because Z."

Did we really need this right now? Was it necessary?

 

[PopeReal]

Do you ban that person or not?

You make it seem so easy and straightforward. It's not.

If this is such a simple thing, why is GG considered so nebulous? Nobody can ever point at a single person and say "that's the guy who did this." They organize themselves that way on purpose.

For all you know they have thousands of sock puppet accounts all doing one single drive-by harassment post, and can spin up a hundred more after any of them get banned.

So a company like twitter with the resources and ability to have some of the brightest minds cannot tackle such an issue? I am not sure why you are so worried about taking down all of gamergate. Getting some peace for some of their very own users might be a good start.

 

[A Link to the Past]

It's not their job to deal with harassers, it's the police forces and they do try but they've got limited methods at their disposal.

I honestly don't know what you think the industry could do to prevent a bunch of anonymous assholes from harassing people. It's been happening since the beginning of the internet, except now they're more organised and harder to track down.

The industry already host events for diversity and developers are trying to be inclusive while making games, but that just seems to piss off these people more.

I've never seen someone consider the industry so incompetent that the idea of literally ever condemning GamerGate is considered too difficult. Simply amazing. Also, by what metric does the industry try? How many companies have even acknowledged that GamerGate exists?

 

[Zipzo]

Do you ban that person or not?

You make it seem so easy and straightforward. It's not.

If this is such a simple thing, why is GG considered so nebulous? Nobody can ever point at a single person and say "that's the guy who did this." They organize themselves that way on purpose.

For all you know they have thousands of sock puppet accounts all doing one single drive-by harassment post, and can spin up a hundred more after any of them get banned.

UncleSporky is maybe doing a better job of explaining where I'm coming from.

How do we discern a person that is clearly in the wrong, and clearly in the right excluding obviously bad things like death threats?

At this point, somebody could "accidentally" be a gamergater in the sense that they happen to uncover information, and maybe they never even meant for that information to lead to any harm but in the event it does...should that person be held accountable for being a gamergater?

I mean...as I've stated before I just think it makes way more sense to take people out individually, hold people responsible for their words. It's impossible to stop...a "movement" without getting in to the nitty gritty and making examples out of people. Someone making death threats should be a win for our side, because we report them and they get their lives made bumpy because they thought it was ok to run their mouths online.

Over time, progress can be made, people begin to understand slowly that their words have repercussions.

 

[Salamando]

So a company like twitter with the resources and ability to have some of the brightest minds cannot tackle such an issue? I am not sure why you are so worried about taking down all of gamergate. Getting some peace for some of their very own users might be a good start.

They're trying to tackle it, it's just a very hard issue to solve.

 

[UncleSporky]

So a company like twitter with the resources and ability to have some of the brightest minds cannot tackle such an issue? I am not sure why you are so worried about tackling all of gamergate. Getting some peace for some of their very own users might be a good start.

If it were possible to fight back against GG people would be doxxing primary members and harassing them right back as we speak.

Note I am not an advocate of tactics like that, but I'm just saying realistically it would be happening, because people are that passionate about this situation.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I've never seen someone consider the industry so incompetent that the idea of literally ever condemning GamerGate is considered too difficult. Simply amazing. Also, by what metric does the industry try? How many companies have even acknowledged that GamerGate exists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#Gaming_industry_response

His statements were widely interpreted as referring to Gamergate.[191][192][193][194] CEOs of both the American and European branches of Sony Computer Entertainment, Shawn Layden and Jim Ryan respectively, said the harassment and bullying were absolutely horrific and that such inappropriate behavior would not be tolerated at Sony.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation characterized Gamergate as a "magnet for harassment", and notes the possible financial risk for companies dealing with it on social media platforms.[188] The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) issued a statement condemning the harassment, stating that "[t]here is no place in the video game community—or our society—for personal attacks and threats".[189] ESA president Mike Gallagher, speaking at the June 2015 Electronic Entertainment Expo, clarified that the ESA did not become more involved as they felt it was an argument that was outside their industry and their involvement would have been disruptive, but praised the efforts to counter harassment that will benefit the industry in the future.

Electronic Arts (EA) COO Peter Moore said the controversy made EA pay more attention to diversity and inclusion, telling Fortune "f there's been any benefit to Gamergate, [...] I think it just makes us think twice at times".[210]

Two of the biggest publishers in the industry, with more at the link.

They know there's a problem, they just don't know how to fix it.

 

[PopeReal]

UncleSporky is maybe doing a better job of explaining where I'm coming from.

How do we discern a person that is clearly in the wrong, and clearly in the right excluding obviously bad things like death threats?

At this point, somebody could "accidentally" be a gamergater in the sense that they happen to uncover information, and maybe they never even meant for that information to lead to any harm but in the event it does...should that person be held accountable for being a gamergater?

I mean...as I've stated before I just think it makes way more sense to take people out individually, hold people responsible for their words. It's impossible to stop...a "movement" without getting in to the nitty gritty and making examples out of people. Someone making death threats should be a win for our side, because we report them and they get their lives made bumpy because they thought it was ok to run their mouths online.

Over time, progress can be made, people begin to understand slowly that their words have repercussions.

How would I accidentally dig up information on someone's past? Is there like some internet dump of info I could stumble upon?

This is just getting weird. Stop fretting so much over theoretical misunderstood and wronged social media users. Start worrying about the people who are being targeted and harassed every day.

 

[AstroZombie]

Rapp got Rapp fired. I'm sure Nintendo has language in their employee contracts prohibiting that sort of behavior, but it's easier to blame the boogieman.

Got. To. Protect. The. Narrative.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Well, I guess since there only like a dozen video game companies, that means that they're doing swimmingly.

Also, my first suggestion to EA would be to make a huge apology to women over their Battlefield 3 shit show and demonstrate that they will not do anything even remotely like that ever again.

 

[PopeReal]

If it were possible to fight back against GG people would be doxxing primary members and harassing them right back as we speak.

Note I am not an advocate of tactics like that, but I'm just saying realistically it would be happening, because people are that passionate about this situation.

Why would anyone do that? It is fucked up and people just want to be left alone.

You don't fight back by doing the same stupid shit.

Rapp got Rapp fired. I'm sure Nintendo has language in their employee contracts prohibiting that sort of behavior, but it's easier to blame the boogieman.

Got. To. Protect. The. Narrative.

Harassment?