Yeah, Utah is a little scary.

Chris, I had the same reaction as Tony because I took your statements at face value. I'm not sure where the skepticism over the victim's motives is coming from, but I find it odd. Anita has made some TV appearances, but I doubt she's making much off those Youtube videos. Any measure of Youtube income you use will tell you that.

I'm sure she'd trade whatever meager earnings she's made from Youtube for a regained sense of security.

Tony, that was a fantastic and superbly-written post. Bravo.

Gamergate is a mess. I can get on board with concerns over the integrity of gaming journalism (although really, I don't care), but to argue about what the movement has become seems absurd. I'm not sure if those core followers understand what public perception is, but if the perception is that your movement is about something, that's what it's about. Maybe it's time to start a new movement.

There's sort of a Pascal's wager effect with this stuff. Let's assume arguendo that some particular target or another of the GG crowd is embellishing or completely fabricating elements of their story for whatever reason. What exactly is the downside of taking their claims at face value? Very little as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the downside of skepticism toward their claims is very significant. When you add to this the large quantity of verifiable claims of explicit threats and intimidation, I think it's pretty clear that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who've been on the wrong side of this mob. And yeah, as folks have said, if it ever was really about ethics in game journalism, it isn't now, and you don't get a second chance to make first impression. Ask Occupy Wall Street about that.

I find Utah to be absolutely amazing and love going there. Most of the people are awesome (a few are a little too off, my mother had an 'incident' with a customer service rep there that still makes me laugh my ass off). The liquor laws are odd, but other than that, awesome place and amazing scenery.

You're not kidding !

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Zion+curtains

I still find it distressing that the curtains are named after one of the most beautiful places on Earth.

Depends on how closely you bind your definition of kid to actual age. Legally, most in the crowd were of the adult age. A high but not quite majority percentage were in their 30s, with the slight majority fitting into the 20-29 side. I'll have to find the research into it again, but it was depressing to see.

I also realized mush of this thread has been discussing this as if it's in the past. Gamergate is still a thing today, and still causing problems for many people.

It would be interesting to see the research source, and if/how they obtained the age data for the people who were on IRC/4Chan/Twitter anonymously.

I stand by my short assessment which, to be fair to me, had nothing to do with the scenery, which is gorgeous. But the people in the state are kind of at the extremes. Some are exceedingly nice and cool. Others are not. I was there for a while and found it an...interesting place.

But my favorite Utah moment was when I was chatting with a local. I loved the look on his face when I described a Brew Thru.

Curious to see Zoe's full talk from XOXO. This is a good read overall, with this part standing out:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/14/9326207/zoe-quinn-gamergate-xoxo-festival

Very cool quote.

Indeed. How do you think we systematize that reinforcement break?

Sometimes I wonder if these are just growing pains of our net-connected society. In the past, we would all develop natural social contracts and queues, but it happened slowly. Maybe things are just moving too fast for us at the moment to be able to see the end of it.

The UN is now joining the cause: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/24/9392067/united-nations-cyber-violence-against-women-report-tech

One positive aspect of Gamergate, the abusers self branded and rallied around a name. Their thoughts as explained in the Why are you so Angry series was that the name would help them blend into a crowd. This time it's had the opposite effect, shining a spotlight on the abuse and the tactic of hiding in crowds shouting "ethics in game journalism".

Women may have equal rights to men in many countries, but they certainly don't have equal experiences online. I'm glad to see an organization like the UN recognizing this, and speaking out about it. Denial of this being an issue, or scoping the issue to seem unsolvable does no good towards addressing it.

Link to the original document...

http://www.unwomen.org/~/media/headquart...20150924T154259

An unfortunate aspect of this paper is the sourcing of some rather odd things, including debunked research about video games that came out of the late 90s. It's also mixing a lot together unrelated to online harassment and threats. I'm hoping that they can refine this, as people are going to tear this apart and ignore some of the good suggestions it has intermixed with some of the oddness. My own reactions when reading it were going back and forth a lot, so I can only imagine how parts of it are coming across to others not well connected to the issues Gamergate caused.

Essentially my fear is that while the UN has a goal of sensitizing people to this to get them to care and advocate for change, it may help further desensitize people.

My personal feelings are that they have had to pull on odd resources as there is no research or studies that actually back up what they are trying to say.

Like you said, I don't think in the long run it will be of any use in it's current state.

Cheers

Cris

Far from it. Their has been a lot of research, including the paper Tony C. linked to at the start of the thread on Gamergate. Much of it was done because the name alone helped bind together many different online sources to help study what happened. On the wider issues the UN paper discussed, other aspects are also well researched. Been slowly digging into each of the citations in the UN paper. The 90s gamer one at the end (118) was easy to spot by myself as I've already read through it and the followup research that debunked many of it's points. It does reflect badly on the output, but not the process (IMHO).


I didn't mean to imply that. The paper it's self may have several flaws in it. Other parts though are more a divide between sex positive feminists and feminists against the sex positive culture. The paper was mainly written by someone in the second sub-group.

The process of creating this paper with some of the panels held at the UN has been good to see. One important point Zoe even argued there was protection of online anonymity.

There are many different groups coming together sharing experiences and trying to come to a common consensus. At the UN level this is tricker, due to the national interests also coming forward, such as the nations that want to eliminate online anonymity. While it's been frustrating for some involved, they all seem to indicate it's still worth the effort to push forward at the UN, while other efforts also continue.

Zoe's part of an interview here about the report:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/im-disappointed-zoe-quinn-speaks-out-on-un-cyberviolence-report

I had thought she was more involved with this, seems the UN published her name of people victimized without even asking her. This alone is dangerous, as often groups will grab these lists and go after people again to further attempt to silence them, or worse.

UN ITU issues an apology over the initial publication, and will have an updated revision published in two weeks.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/united-nations-apologizes-for-fault-ridden-cyberviolence-report

Sadly it seems the organizers of South by Southwest haven't figured that out.

They accepted a panel about solutions in regards to online harassment the normal way. And then a second panel appeared late in the process and was approved last minute, crafted in the open at the main gamergate subreddit pushing the false ethics angle. And today cancelled both due to the threats the venue was getting.

Unfortunately this result is yet again letting the silencing effect of these few core people take hold.

http://recode.net/2015/10/26/is-it-really-about-ethics-in-journalism/

Hoping to see this one turn around somehow. SXSW is catching a lot of flack for this today.

Overall looks like the SXSW situation is going to result in the Gamergate hate group yet again massively amplifying the anti-harassment subject, instead of their sexist based agenda. Good to see.

Good writeup of the situation so far by a game designer down in Austin: http://www.zenofdesign.com/sxswhoops/

Very good article. Scary, but true.

How does that compare to any critics of Obama automatically being labeled a racist?

Or any supporters of Trump being immediately declared as a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, antisemitic misogynist? (The Electors in AZ have been getting extensive abuse from people telling them to not vote for Trump - one said he was called antisemitic which confused him, because he is Jewish).

The hate isn't limited to one set of beliefs or politics. The anonymity of the Internet brings out the ugly in a lot of people.

I participate in a forum called "Quora" which consists of a whole lot of people who answer questions on any topic to the best of their ability. The subjects range from quantum mechanics to politics to... you name it, and there are some pretty smart people there. Kind of like here, I guess.

Anyway, here is a question and answer that addresses your concern in an interesting fashion.

Why are many people so hostile and intolerant towards those who voted Trump? Especially on Quora. By state, the people chose Trump. The majority of those are not white, racist misogynists. But many users on this site refer to them as such. Why?

Jim Ryan answers:

A backpacker in a small Irish village ducked into a rustic little pub to escape the rain. To his surprise, the place was empty except for one grey-haired man slouched over his glass of whisky. Soon the old guy broke the silence:

“Do you see this pub here? I built it with me own hands, felled the trees, finished the lumber and nailed each and every plank in place. Do they call me O’Mallory the pub builder?

You see that stone wall out there? I pried each and every stone out of the potato fields, carried them a half-mile and set ’em all in place just so. Do they call me O’Mallory the stone wall builder?

D’ye see that pier out in the lake? I drove those pilings deep into the mud with the sweat of me brow and the strength of me arm so it would last an age. Do they call me O’Mallory the pier builder?

But… you fuck one goat…

A vote for Trump is that one goat. It has a way of eclipsing any virtues you might claim for yourself. Whatever private, deep-down goodness you can point to, the fact remains: you voted for the Cheeto-hued fascist sexual predator whose election has neo-Nazis wetting themselves with glee. And you thought this was a good thing? Sorry to be a meanie about this, but it’s hard to respect that decision or credit what are undoubtedly the other good points of the person who made it. I’m sure they exist, but I find myself in the position of O’Mallory’s Irish neighbors. It’s hard to get Old Nannygoat’s bleating cry out of my ears.

'Nuff said.

tanstaafl.

I don't think all Trump voters are racists. But the ones who aren't stood shoulder to shoulder with racists and said "that doesn't bother me."

Trump's campaign was run on divisiveness. There might be hate on both sides, but it is not anywhere close to equivalent and that is where you make your error.

This false equivalency is maddening, and it's precisely how we in the US have gotten into this mess. A handful of electors being harassed cannot be credibly compared to the mainstreaming of the so-called "alt-right" that has built a movement so powerful that it's taken ownership of one of our two major political parties and now controls the levers of power. Some of Trump's voters wanted a fascist strongman, some didn't, but we're all about to get one, and if you can't see the Trumpist base as something unique and far more problematic than a few people sending nasty emails in a desperate attempt to stop him from taking power, well, talk to me in a couple of years.

It isn't just a handful of electors, though. Thinking it is just shows how unaware people are about the problem.

Please offer a source for these claims and then explain to me how it's equivalent to the explosion of hate crimes across the nation since the election.

From the articles I read (the articles from reputable news sources as opposed to just conservative sites), these electors are getting letters, emails and phone calls, asking them to exercise their right and duty in this electoral democracy, to refuse to elect someone who is unqualified for the office.

As I understand it, letters, emails and phone calls are the correct way to speak to our government officials to make ourselves heard in a democracy. Even if some of those letters contain inflammatory language (including telling a Jewish elector that he would be aligning himself with antisemitism if he votes for Trump), it is still not harassment: It is people using the appropriate channels (and their only available channels) to communicate with their government.

I haven't heard about electors systematically getting doxxed, swatted, or threatened with violence. Trying to equate their situation with actual harassment diminishes and takes attention away from the true criminal levels of harassment that others have endured.

This is not two equally-hateful sides. One side is not "Hate". There is a difference between righteous anger/surpise/ourtrage/backlash/defense, and the actual true Hate. The hate we're talking about here is a long-term calculated campaign of hate, violence, discrimination, stripping of human rights, and disenfranchisement towards specific races and genders.

If you really think that this is two equally-wrong sides, you're buying into the lies being fed to you. Have a think about that. Please, for your own sake.