The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 8: An Autopsy of the SocialAutopsy Situation

Part 1: An Introduction

Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman
Part 6: The SPJ Airplay Bomb Threat
Part 7: I Do Actually Stand With Mustafa

The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war Gamergate. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against their own hobby's press. The ideology which controlled the machines sent two agents to the forefront. Their mission: to draw the aggro and act as bait. But they picked the wrong drama to initiate, and may be failing.

Late last week, a Kickstarter campaign launched for a service called Social Autopsy, ostensibly an anti-bullying service, which aimed to collect information on harassing and/or offensive speech and tie it to a database that would identify a person by name, by image, and possibly even by employer. I, like many others both in the free speech camp as well as those against it, immediately saw the flaws and exploits in a system like this.* But something strange happened with Social Autopsy.

I mentioned Gamergate earlier because several individuals opposed to whatever-the-narrative-is-this-week stepped in. Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper, who run anti-bullying organizations themselves, got involved with Social Autopsy... but not in the way you'd expect people working in the same field would.

Less than a day after the Kickstarter launched, Social Autopsy's founder, Candace Owens, was contacted by Quinn to discuss the project. In Owens's own words, Owens provided Quinn with her personal e-mail address, and Quinn spoke with her both over e-mail and phone. But not words of support, as you'd expect, but to try and talk her out of it. Why would someone who was the victim of harassment herself allegedly fight so hard against a way of unmasking and identifying harassers?

Owens was suspicious, but rebutted each argument Quinn had and, again according to Owens, Quinn grew more frustrated, again giving her credentials and claiming to be representing various anti-bullying organizations that she declined to name. With red flags going up, Owens stood firm, refusing to back down, with Quinn eventually warning her that Gamergate would come after her.

And sure enough, that's what happened. The anti-bullying advocate was then harassed off the internet and into hiding by a boogeyman that was simultaneously a bunch of powerless whiners and also the unnameable threat stalking the tech blogs and gaming press of the last two years.

Nah, I'm kidding. Hours later, Owens began receiving nasty messages first on her Kickstarter campaign profile, and then emails on her personal e-mail account -- the one she'd given to Quinn -- with all manner of offensive language with a single common thread. “Men, Misogyny, and Gaming,” as she put it. All of the messages came from male names, using gendered language against her, and with video games somewhere in the address field. Keep in mind that Owens had been nowhere near gaming until now. She hadn't even heard of Gamergate, but now she was getting emails from addresses like “gamedeveloperyal@animalfetishporn.us.” Hours after that her Kickstarter was shut down, and Randi Harper (again, a noted anti-GG name and herself a... harassment expert) wrote a post on Medium where she blasted Candace Owens and Social Autopsy's Kickstarter before claiming responsibility for having it shut down.

There's two possibilities I'm seeing here for what happened next. Candace Owens is either incredibly smart (if misguided, considering how terrible an idea SocialAutopsy was) or so uninvolved with the tech blog drama world that she immediately saw a pattern and started putting things together, because she then spent the next several days blasting Quinn and Harper on Twitter, all but accusing them of being the entire harassment machine that Gamergate was accused to be themselves and writing an epic history of the situation on her own website (I strongly suggest you read it) that puts mine to shame. Candace Owens continues to make noise about more information she has.

Of course, there was retaliation from the usual suspects. Jesse Singal penned a hitpiece than ran on New York Magazine's website. Embarrassing human David Futrelle has smeared her. I'm waiting for more to drop. But what I'm really waiting for is for the gloves to come off and get really dirty, though. Candace Owens is a black woman. That's not important to me, but that means she's further up the progressive stack than Quinn or Harper, and that means her voice should carry more weight with those most involved in this narrative. I'm 100% sure there'll be some justification, though: being accused of "internalized misogyny", or called an Uncle Tom, or something equally heinous to discredit her and protect the narrative.

Now we can only sit back, wait, and make more popcorn and hope more evidence is presented, because this ride *still* hasn't ended.


*For one, I believe that unless someone's job is directly tied to the things they say online, don't go after her job. For another, how do you weed out fake profiles, anonymous names, and impersonations to make certain that the wrong person doesn't get shamed?

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 7: I Do Actually Stand With Mustafa

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman
Part 6: The SPJ Airplay Bomb Threat

In Which I Say "Mustafa" a Lot
“Ooohh.. say it again!”
“Bahar Mustafa!”

It's been said that tools designed with the purpose of silencing people, any people, will eventually be turned against and used to silence marginalized people. It's for this reason that I am a strong believer in the concept -- not just the law or the amendment to the US Constitution, but the very idea -- of free speech. No matter how offensive or inane an idea, I still think you should have a right to say that idea, and nothing rustles my very jimmies more than people who take it lightly, dismiss it as a dangerous concept, or make jokes about 'freeze peach.'

Long ago, the Left won the public opinion PR battle by debate. They brought ideas that had not been challenged into the open, and debated them publicly to let the people decide which ideas could stand on merit. Now, the loudest voices in the Left are silencing not only those on the opposite end of the political spectrum ,but also those not as far Left as themselves, so that they can avoid having their ideologies dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light for an evaluation of merit.

Several months ago a 'diversity officer' for a rather upscale British university, one Bahar Mustafa (I love that name), made a bit of a row by publicly stating that white people were not allowed to a meeting with an emphasis on black and ethnic minority students, regardless of whether they were there for debate or for support. I'm sure that she did so in a mature and reasonable manner, too, given her position of responsibility as an employee of the school as opposed a radicalized student. This didn't go over well in the public eye, coupled with her frequent use of the #KillAllMen and #KillAllWhiteMen hashtags.

Come on now, you saw this coming

Either way, it all blew over, she wasn't removed from her position, and she got media attention for the incident both positive and otherwise, and got a chance to make a very public statement.

Unsurprisingly, it was not one that was in the form of a debate where those ideas could be challenged.



Fast forward several months, and the UN Broadband Commission, along with UN Women, held a summit with the focus on “Cyberviolence against Women and Girls.” The highlights of this summit included a 70-page report that covered, among other things, video games and sex work (not just sex-trafficking, but prostitution). The report was... less than comprehensive, and had lots of issues. Citations that pointed towards debunked reports that claimed Pokemon was satanic, that consumer video games were used to train military personnel, a citation that cited the report itself, several blank citations, and the much-derided citation that let to somebody's C:\ drive. The report was ripped to shreds on social media to the point that the UN retracted it, putting in its place a bare-bones version that's a mere 7 pages. It was so bad that even one of the speakers invited publicly denounced it.

Also making an appearance were Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, who I believe you'll remember from Gamergate notoriety. You know, that terrorist organization that led hate campaigns that drove every woman from gaming... or something like that. They were there to argue that harassment isn't just, as I'm paraphrasing, what's legal or illegal, it's “you suck” or “you're wrong” or disagreement. Granted, not everything they said was without merit, but it's the equivalent of a pork spending bill where you pack in one giant scummy thing with a ton of really helpful things in the hopes of passing them all at once.

I take every so slight issue with the argument that "If you're not allowed to disagree with someone because they're a certain race, gender, or some other factor that's arbitrary to their argument, you slowly erode the concept of freedom of speech," because you end up with Gregory Elliot facing charges for disagreeing vehemently and vocally with someone on Twitter who wanted to dox and harass the guy who did the 'Beat Up Anita' game. Not that anyone did the same for the guy who did the 'Beat Up Jack Thompson' game.

Or did they? Because Ben Spurr, the guy who made the Anita game, is the same person who made the Jack Thompson game, and everyone had a good laugh at that one and never bothers to acknowledge the same person made both games.

Back on track, let's fast forward another month or so: Bahar Mustafa is now facing charges for sending 'threatening communications.' Which is absolute, utter, contemptible bullshit. Yes, it's karmic justice given her air of invincibility surrounding the incidents that caused this, and it's the seeds sown by the UN meeting, but it's also complete horse shit:

She's got a right to tweet dumb shit. People have a right to tell her she's tweeting dumb shit. If they're assholes about it, other people have a right to call them out for being assholes, and bob's your uncle, turtles all the way down.

Just like when the aforementioned cultural media critic makes a poorly researched and flawed observation, people have a right to criticize her. And if they're assholes about it, people have a right to tell them they're being assholes about it. Nothing is immune to criticism -- not even criticism. Criticism of criticism may sound silly on the face, but there's nothing more harmful to a flourishing idea than poorly thought-out or delivered feedback.

The response has been overwhelmingly similar, too. Everyone that's been painted as a villain for the past few years has pretty much stated “Yeah, she said dumb shit, but that's not a crime.” 

Because it's not. It's not a crime. And if you make it a crime to say dumb shit, who decides what shit is sufficiently dumb to outlaw? How do we grow if we're not allowed to drag ill-formed ideas and opinions into the public eye and either refine or discard them? Down that path lies madness, where we outlaw one form of speech after another, until we're all too terrified to say what's on our minds, whether it be productive or offensive.

In conclusion, I think Bahar Mustafa is a spoiled brat who lives in an entirely too large mansion and went to an entirely too expensive school with no real concept of how the real world works or what 'oppression' actually means... but I stand with her right to spew whatever idiocy she wants to so that we can all point and laugh. Never get in the way of someone making themselves look like an idiot.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 6: The SPJ Airplay Bomb Threat

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman
Part 6: The SPJ Airplay Bomb Threat
Part 7: I Do Actually Stand With Mustafa

In Which I Follow Up

Today is the 27^th of August, 2015. A year ago today, actor Adam Baldwin coined the term that would become the hashtag Gamergate. Over the next few days, a concerted effort by games media to shame gamers and shut down any questioning viewpoints failed to stop it, and it's grown, peaked, and leveled off since then. I've watched this story for the last year, continuing to lurk and research in both the pro- and anti-GG camps. I've seen beautiful moments of clarity as people learn to question narratives that have been fed to them by their own 'sides' (much as I had do to myself) in the pro- camp. I've seen people come so close to self-awareness in the anti- camp, only to pull back in fear. I've seen the phenomenon of “Game-dropping” occur, where major media outlets will reference the dreaded boogeyman Gamergate everywhere from marginally-related topics like Science Fiction awards to completely unrelated topics like planned off-world colonies on Mars to reprehensibly placed references to shootings nearly a year later.

Two Saturdays ago, on a day in Miami that was so hot and muggy that you couldn't pay me to be out in it, The Society of Professional Journalism hosted a talk on the subject of Gamergate. They'd had an “Ethics Week,” an event where they “recognize journalists who seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and are accountable and transparent.” To those opposed to Gamergate, “actually, its about ethics in games journalism” has become a joke, a meme, something to (somehow) discredit their boogeyman-like adversary, but to the pro- side, it's still very much an important idea. And so they flooded SPJ's Ethics Week hashtag. Regional SPJ director Michael Koretzky took notice and started talking to people -- people on both sides. What he found out can be summed up in a quote taken from an interview (linked below) with David Pakman: “I'm a journalist for 30 years, so I have the sympathy of a slot machine. Sympathy is not an issue. When someone tells me, as a journalist, all of those people over there are evil assholes, I get my antenna up and I don't believe it, because I don't believe the word “all” ever.”


“It's hard enough getting journalists to care about ethics, and here were civilians caring about ethics.” -- Michael Koretzky

So Koretzky got to work. He put together SPJ Airplay. His original intent was a debate, getting both pro- and anti-factions to the table. He reached out to prominent names on the anti-side, names that I previously wrote that I was warned against mentioning. Every one of them (as I'll speculate here), when faced with the prospect of being exposed to a rebuttal argument that can't be silenced with a twitter blocklist, declined to appear. The pro-side very eagerly found representatives, including three women and three men -- four journalists, a professor, and a youtube streamer. SPJ recruited a journalist ethics expert, journalism trainer, and an indie games developer. Anti-GG? Still no one.

The first panel went off without a hitch, with a lot of good discussion on the topic, and one of the highlights being the SPJ representatives roundly denouncing Gawker after an audience member presented a statement for their consideration that Gawker 'destroys lives.' The afternoon panel was argumentative and meandering, as you'd expect it to be with both Christina Hoff-Summers and Milo Yannapoulis present, at least until around the 1:15 mark, where the auditorium was swiftly evacuated. Despite the precautions taken by Koretzky which included notifying the police beforehand and searching and locking down the building overnight with a private security firm, a bomb threat was emailed to both the police and the Miami Herald with a specific time.

Which can't be looked at as anything but suspicious as this isn't even the first time it's happened. The #GGinDC meetup at a local bar had the same result. If you use your imagination and look at it with a very open mind these instances, coupled with an entirely one-sided narrative from the mainstream media (spurred on by the original targets of ire such as Kotaku and Polygon) it's almost as if dissent of the narrative must be silenced, no matter the cost.


“My opinion is that, after looking into this, is that most of the harassing done on both sides is being done by people on neither side.” -- Michael Koretzky

After the event, Koretzky and the SPJ reps co-opted an abandoned house and continued speaking with the panelists and members of the audience for some time after. You would think that after such a momentous event, gaming and other cultural sites would be chomping at the bit to report it, but beyond a few smaller sites and a surprisingly out of character and even-handed piece from Polygon, there was nary a peep. David Pakman, who had previously covered the story by interviewing both sides, spoke with Koretzky on the matter and, based on their discussion, they make a pretty poor misogynistic hate group. 

The cracks are showing in the narrative, mainly because the people who want better media refuse to roll over and die. They seem to have brought their tanks and medics and are fully prepared to fight this raid boss for as long as it takes, win or lose.

Trending on Twitter during the event.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman

In Which I Tell You a Story

More like "show you a story," as this is one better told in moving pictures. This story mirrors my own research of the topic of #GamerGate, but is writ larger and grander. And with a slightly different ending, at least as far as I can tell, given that this thing is hardly over (going on four months now!), and the story still unfolds a little more every now and then.


I
David Pakman is progressive liberal, a feminist, a registered independent that votes Democrat, and until recently, a member of The Young Turks network. In short, he's the platonic ideal of 'anti-GamerGate', but he's also, despite his political leanings, a proper journalist who isn't afraid to ask hard questions to even those he might be sympathetic towards, and in that he's got my respect. He's been covering GamerGate in a series of interviews since late October, and has come to embody the saying of "If you've got both sides accusing you of being the for the other guy, then you're doing your job right." He's probably doing his job better than I am, if only because he started from a stronger, further Left position than I did.

The thing is, I can understand the cognitive dissonance he's suffering right now, and that becomes more and more apparent as the series of interviews and opinion pieces goes on.


II
It started with an interview with Brianna Wu (antiGG), who was there to discuss her involvement in GamerGate (interestingly claiming the movement was 2+ years old and began with Anita Sarkeesian and Samantha Allen), but ended in her accusing him of putting her on trial when he asked too many questions. Interestingly, when discussing an interview with Milo Yiannopoulos, she had some similar allegations...




III
...which led to Pakman's interview with Milo Yiannopoulos (neutral, leaning proGG) regarding his attempted interview with Brianna Wu and his own impressions of GamerGate. Milo has fantastic hair.




IV
Pakman's next interview was a rarity. A female perspective from (proGG) Jennie Bharaj, gaming personality and herself a gamer. Honestly, Jennie doesn't interview well, but I feel she came off no worse than Ms. Wu.




V
A watershed moment, though, was probably Pakman's interview with professional gamescaster and one of the most prominent YouTube gaming personalities (proGG) TotalBiscuit aka John Bain, who, mere days after cancer surgery, brought another relevant perspective regarding his own experiences in dealing with games publishers and press. He has a magnificent voice.




VI
Arthur Chu (antiGG), Jeopardy winner and possibly the most baffling nerd culture pundit to date, was Pakman's next and, to date, longest interview. The highlights of this interview were Pakman repeatedly assuring Chu that they're on the same side, and Chu accusing Pakman of giving voice to an angry mob and 'insane conspiracy theorists.' Chu does not interview well either.




VII
Possibly one of the few True Neutral alignments, Liana Kerzner came next. Kerzner has a gift for cutting through erroneous bullshit.




VIII
Canadian and (self-described) radical feminist group The Fine Young Capitalists were the next to speak to Pakman. Their involvement with GamerGate came early, when Zoe Quinn accused them of being exploitative towards women and transphobic because they stated that entrants in their game-jam had to identify as female before a certain date in order to participate.




IX
8chan Admin Frederick “HotWheels” Brennan (neutral, free speech advocate)spoke to David, placing an emphasis on free speech and roundly denounced doxxing, harassment, and illegal content.




X
Here's where the story gets really interesting. David discussed his own opinion of GamerGate, stating that while there is a problem of sexism, it's hardly exclusive to games and is really no worse there than anywhere else. He also believes that ethics in games journalism isn't the biggest problem in the world, especially in light of things like water shortages, wars, and human rights violations. And he's right. But I think what he misses is that this is a fight that gamers are equipped to fight, and it's a fight that's in their own backyard.




XI
And then the CBC got involved, and showed a snippet of one of Pakman's videos in a one-sided smear story, specifically during a segment that talked about harassers.




XII
The CBC then responded with the reporter saying 'we're totally not calling you a harasser, we promise.'




XIII
Pakman found out that he was on a 15,000+ strong blocklist of 'harassers.' Other harassers include actor Taye Diggs and KFC. No lie.




XIV
Again, Pakman found himself labeled a harasser by an alleged former 'GamerGater' and blocked by Arthur Chu.




XV
Porn Star Mercedes Carrera (proGG), herself a woman with a history in technology, appeared on his show (safe for work, I promise!) to tell the story of how the AbleGamers charity backed out of a fundraiser she had been planning because of her involvement in GamerGate. This is possibly the most blatant example of David losing his cool, as he does interrupt her to go on tangents periodically.




XVI
I apologize if I've left a great deal of material for my readers to sort through, but I feel a personal connection here, if not to the subject matter, then to the idea of a liberal person who asks too many questions having their perceptions broken. Pakman has faced such hostility from the anti-GamerGate side for questioning what's presented as unassailable truths, and this mirrors my own experience in recent years; first in my decision to retire the label 'feminist" in reference to myself in the face of populist third-wave feminists, and now even the reluctance to identify as liberal or progressive due to the behaviors of others flying those flags.

As for me? I still don't know if I identify as Pro-GamerGate, but I'm sure as hell Anti-Anti-GamerGate.


This is the end of Salem's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" series of articles. If anything further develops, it will be addressed as an epilogue or a follow-up article. 

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 4: Factions Form

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson 
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman


In Which I Take a Look at All Sides

When I mentioned in  Part 1 that there were more than two sides to GamerGate, I was simplifying the issue. Even now, I'll be forced to simplify the issue yet again, as there are degrees, sliding scales, and sub-factions that complicate the mere effort of even trying to tell who is on what side. To the uninformed on the outside that are getting their news from Huffington Post or The Verge, it's pretty cut and dry:

There is an army of cis-hetero white dudes living in their mothers' basement that are harassing and sending threats to poor, defenseless female developers and critics, trying to drive them out of the industry. Standing up to this wave of immoral darkness are brave souls, trying to drag the industry kicking and screaming into a loving and inclusive future.

But is it that simple? Of course not. It's never that simple. And I'm not going to parrot the same things you've read elsewhere. I'm peeling back the bandage to look at the sides that don't get shown.


I. GamerGate
It's important to remember that there are no leaders when looking at this side of the debate. There are voices that are louder than others, but they come and go; someone you might see as a spokesperson one week is gone the next. But some of the more prevalent myths need debunking:

• GamerGate is a bunch of white dudes: This was one of the first myths to emerge, even before the hashtag was created. The gaming press itself has debunked this one, with its celebrated articles claiming that over 40% of gamers are women, and shortly after the initial firestorm of August 28th, #NotYourShield was created by a black games developer as a rebuttal to this. The response was... unpleasant. Female and minority gamers were called sockpuppets at first, then once they were compelled to prove their female/minority status, were called “Uncle Toms” and “house n******” by people claiming to fight racism and bullying. Willful misinterpretation that these were no different from claims of “But I have a black friend...” was thrown in as well. Eventually, the hashtag's creator was fired when pressure was put on his employer by the opposing side.

• GamerGate only uses the excuse of journalistic ethics to harass women and minorities: I'm willing to concede that, early on, some harassment may have come from the Pro-GG side, especially prior to the hashtag's creation. But those people moved on. They're long gone, if they were ever there. It's been over three months now, on an internet whose attention span can be measured in seconds. I've watched the hashtag on twitter. I've lurked on the chans and irc channels, and a few of the sub-reddits, and I've never seen any concerted attempts at harassment.
  
  But, more telling, I've seen things like the GamerGate Harassment Patrol: a group dedicated to reporting twitter accounts that are actually harassing; and its complementary party, the GamerGate Hug Patrol, which has provided kind words to both pro- and anti-GGers who've expressed exhaustion and emotional distress. I've seen too many posts chiding people for getting off-track when discussing people instead of digging for ethical issues. (I'm beginning to suspect that people are defining “harassment” as “disagreeing with me” and don't understand that Twitter conversations are public.)
  
  Most importantly, this is a group with no membership requirements. Even the threats that have had their screenshots on national television haven't been using the #GamerGate or #GG hashtag. 

• GamerGate is an MRA/Right-wing conspiracy: I think it's telling that this one is frequently used to slur a consumer revolt. In all honesty, I've seen people all over the political spectrum on both sides of GamerGate. Yes, I've seen conservatives and Republicans, but I've also seen liberal progressives; I've seen MRAs, but I've also seen feminists. Religious, non-religious, races, genders, etc, this is one of the more diverse groups that I've observed (see #NotYourShield). Also, if you're one of those people that uses a politico-ideological stance to slur somebody, consider not doing so... you won't win anyone over to your side that way.
  
• GamerGate has clearly and obviously targeted non-journalist women: Look, Zoe Quinn got a shit-ton of attention, but objectively speaking, it was her relationships that were the proverbial straw on a camel's back. I feel bad for her. But then there's this to consider:
  
  
  
  From my observations, the usual suspects that get trotted out as the major targets simply aren't. In fact, I have a hard time not considering them 3rd party trolls, as they involve themselves every chance they get. The best explanation for this misconception is that most of the male journalists targeted for scrutiny tend to keep their heads down and not engage, while a few people actively engage, and then loudly complain about all the messages they get afterwards.

II. Anti-GamerGate
I've written three separate drafts of this section that named names before deleting them all. This is mainly because there are people on this side of the debate (that are already public figures with trust funds and far less to lose) that have released names, addresses, and personal information, siccing thousands of followers on people for the horrendous crime of disagreeing with them publicly.

Yes, there is a rather vocal contingent of people who are vehemently against GamerGate. From what I've observed, they think they're the good guys. They think they're fighting some great evil. I have a hard time believing this when I see Twitter blocklists that are in the tens of thousands of users, and include such known harassers as KFC restaurants and actor Taye Diggs, not to mention syringes and knives mailed to neutral reporters as well as GamerGate supporters.

For my own safety I'm not going to mention the names of any of the Anti-GamerGate side, as some of them have a documented history of considering merely mentioning their names as harassment, and that's a headache I don't need. Besides, you've probably already heard their names and voices on television and in internet stories, not to mention in previously documented articles. From some of the things I've seen, I'm rolling the dice here with the risk that I'd get doxxed for even trying to remain impartial.

I mean that. I'm genuinely concerned, and picking my words very carefully here, as even with my piddling view count, I've gotten messages 'politely' suggesting that I should let this topic drop.

I simply cannot muster the cognitive dissonance required to believe that the people who are vocally against GamerGate are people who, like they claim to be, are against bullying, against harassment, against doxxing people and exposing them to actual, literal, physical harm, and against racism and sexism, especially with the way people using #NotYourShield have been treated. I will say that by focusing on identity politics and leveraging a small amount of fame (with press connections, no one should be surprised), the Anti-GamerGate side has a louder voice. The BBC, MSNBC, and others have regularly engaged with them, giving them a much more powerful weapon: Control of the Narrative. 

I also don't have the cognitive dissonance to believe that these people want GamerGate to just stop and go away when I look at their twitter feeds, because they talk about it more than the people who are Pro-GamerGate.

So I'll leave this section with a quote and a link. “There are no bad tactics, only bad targets”- Bob Chipman, aka MovieBob


III. Third Party Trolls
But I know that neither side, despite my trepidation in even speaking about one of them, is responsible for the worst of this. As Alfred said to Bruce in The Dark Knight, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

There are several groups at play in the battlefield that are on neither side. The GNAA allegedly admit involvement. SomethingAwful's GoonSquad has also claimed involvement, if not outright starting it. Pro-GamerGate even tracked down the man behind some rather particularly nasty harassment of critic Anita Sarkeesian, as even Kotaku admitted. Beyond that, it's hard to tell, due to the nature of third-party trolls, but even the more reasonable Anti-GamerGate voices recognize the presence of a third party at work.


IV. Misinformed Celebrities
So Joss Whedon, Adam Savage, or Seth Rogen came out against GamerGate. Honestly, I can't blame them. Just reading the mainstream media and not looking too closely at it, it seems to be a good argument. Besides, celebrities are busy people, they can't dedicate the time to look past the headlines most of the time, and feminism is trendy these days. Especially for famous white dudes. Especially for famous white dudes that live in California. Especially for famous white dudes that live in California who want to look like good people. They're still just people, and they're still capable of having an uninformed opinion, and I'm not saying that people in Hollywood tend to be self-serving... but people in Hollywood tend to be self-serving.



There's more to it than this, but there are certain things that I'm not willing to, at this time, go into. Partly because I don't want my own life invaded, and partly because it's just too exhaustive and would take a month's worth of daily articles twice the length I usually write to cover it all.


Next week: The Curious Tale of David Pakman

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 3: Born In Fire

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman


In Which I Make An Analogy

I
In the year 2013, the video game industry raked in over $66 billion. Gaming regularly dwarfs other forms of entertainment, like movies, TV, the music industry. People who buy and play video games are a very large, very diverse, and very influential demographic.

The industry itself, though, is very young, and has faced relatively few of the trials that other mediums have faced, but the ones it has faced have come in rapid succession. From (disbarred attorney) Jack Thompson to (indicted for corruption) Leland Yee, from invasive Digital Rights Management software to politico-moral crusading and cries of “think of the children,” gamers have been fighting one battle for respect after another for a few decades now. And in the meantime, the gaming medium has grown: it's become more mature and more inclusive, and most gamers have embraced that. So if you think that video games aren't “a big deal,” you might want to rethink that.


II
As I've discussed previously, the relationship between gaming press and gamers has been tenuous at best, but when the medium you write about is approaching the status of being the officially largest form of entertainment in the world, you really should feel some duty to be a consumer advocate. But, to quote Destructoid now:

“That said to me that this "gamer" term has some inherent power to it. It makes people feel something, for better or worse. Compare it to terms like "golfer" or "golf journalism." Imagine if golf pros and commentators were to declare that the term "golfer" is dead. The collective golf community would likely raise an eyebrow, shrug, and get back to golfing. That's not what we're seeing in the "gamer" community right now. “

Would they? Would they, really? I mean, excuse my ignorance (and I know a large number of Erin's audience are gunnies, so also excuse me if I sound a bit repetitive) here, but if Guns & Ammo declared gun owners “obtuse shitslingers, wailing hyper-consumers, or childish internet-arguers” and declared the term “gunnie” dead, would they really just raise an eyebrow, shrug, and go back to the firing range?* Would you really want them to be the public voice advocating for and representing your hobby, that important chunk of your life, or how you choose to spend your free time and income? Would you want them as the loudest voices defending your passion when the U.S. Government turns its eye towards you, with new legislation on the purchasing, ownership, or registration/licensing of firearms?

What if all that you and your friends at the range wanted for years was for more people to understand how satisfying firing off a few rounds was, and the pride of a well-maintained firearm, and then American Handgunner decides to publish a piece about how more new people are discovering firearms, and the people that were already at the range are just mad about “all these scary new people enjoying their pastime?” What if a self-professed gun owner called gunnies “misogynistic losers that are making all gun owners look bad?” What if a disturbingly large number of news outlets started referring to gunnies as people that just want to see children dead because of “muh secin ammenment?”

Now imagine if a dozen such articles dropped inside of a 48-hour period on a dozen different firearms-enthusiast websites, like what happened here:

Obviously, in no way, a coordinated strike.

III

One would think that if all of this was just about an attack on Zoe Quinn, then articles about it would have come out immediately after the incident went public. But they didn't; two weeks passed between The Zoepost (August 16) and the day in which the gaming press carpet-bombed their own readership (August 28). Two weeks is a long time on the internet, especially in a trade that has a 24-hour news cycle. It took two weeks for the immature blow-out that was the “5 Guys burgers and fries Quinnspiracy” to blow over and for people to start noticing links between developers, journalists, publishers, and publicists, and to start asking questions.

It's been argued that these gaming sites are not talking about all gamers, but they make little to no effort to differentiate between any gamers that might (and I say might, as no one has any solid proof) have been involved in any harassment that may have taken place and those that might not have been.
In fact, some go so far as to say things like “Let's say it's a vocal minority,” only to follow up in the next paragraph with “those people do represent your community” and how “so much of gaming culture is howling and flinging shit like a death-metal festival in the Monkey House.“

In short, the unfortunate incident that revealed some ugly details about a relationship also shined a light on some things the gaming press apparently did not want seen and, when questioned, decided that instead of taking a second look at their policies and procedures, went on the full offensive. (This list doesn't repeat any of the links found elsewhere.)

• Kotaku 
• Wired 
• Gamespot 
• Eurogamer 
• Vice 
• ArsTechnica 
• RockPaperShotgun 

IV
Imagine my above scenario again, with the firearms-enthusiast press attacking gunnies left and right. Now imagine that, in the rough world of online journalism, where your revenue lives and dies on clicks, pageviews, and ad revenue, you find out that competing websites are colluding on a narrative. And sharing that information with representatives from weapons manufacturers. And no matter how many questions you might ask, even from a neutral perspective (yes, I'm bringing my own experience in here), you're told that even questioning the narrative makes you a woman-hating misogynist. Imagine discussion forums where 25,000+ comments are deleted. Where accounts are banned for questioning what's being presented as irrefutable truth. How would you know who stands where?

And this is where we find ourselves: in the fiery ground left in the wake of a sect of entertainment press that chose to to carpet-bomb their own readership rather than address the appearance of impropriety and earn the trust of the consumers they should have been advocating for. And in that fiery ground, in the ashes left behind by the immature and frankly embarrassing reaction to the Quinnspiracy incident, is where GamerGate was born.

Next week: Factions Form


*  Erin says:  As a culture, gunnies probably wouldn't care if some pundit stated that the term "gunnie" was dead. But as for the rest... well, one only needs to Google such luminaries as Dick Metcalf and Jim Zumbo to gauge our response. 

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 2: A History Lesson

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman

What really happened?

To understand the history of GamerGate, we have to go back. Back further even than the beginning.

I

Jeff Gerstmann is a figure that's been prominent within games journalism for years. Even before the 21st century began, he was a public face of gaming. Gerstmann served as Editorial Director for Gamespot for a period of time before the game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men was released. I have personally played Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and in my opinion the game is a resounding “Meh.” It's like an archaic Grand Theft Auto without the open-world aspect; essentially a corridor shooter in a game engine that's not built for that. Gerstmann reviewed the game for Gamespot, giving it a “fair” recommendation but overall rightly panning the game as lacking. Gerstmann was shortly afterwards dismissed from Gamespot. It was later revealed the publisher, Eidos, was unhappy with the review and, in the words of Gerstmann, “management gave into publisher pressure.”

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/30/the-new-games-journalism

II

Robert Florence was a writer for Eurogamer. Or he was, until he wrote a piece detailing corruption in the games press back in 2012. You might recognize, if you've been following my work here, the picture used in the 'amended' version of the article.

The original version of that article is available at Neogaf. Florence was dismissed for saying the following:

One games journalist, Lauren Wainwright, tweeted: "Urm... Trion were giving away PS3s to journalists at the GMAs. Not sure why that's a bad thing?"

Now, a few tweets earlier, she also tweeted this: "Lara header, two TR pix in the gallery and a very subtle TR background. #obsessed @tombraider pic.twitter.com/VOWDSavZ"

And instantly I am suspicious. I am suspicious of this journalist's apparent love for Tomb Raider. I am asking myself whether she's in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team. I'm sure she isn't, but the doubt is there. After all, she sees nothing wrong with journalists promoting a game to win a PS3, right?

Another journalist, one of the winners of the PS3 competition, tweeted this at disgusted RPS writer John Walker: "It was a hashtag, not an advert. Get off the pedestal." Now, this was Dave Cook, a guy I've met before. A good guy, as far as I could tell. But I don't believe for one second that Dave doesn't understand that in this time of social media madness a hashtag is just as powerful as an advert. Either he's on the defensive or he doesn't get what being a journalist is actually about.

III

Mass Effect 3, released in March 2012, came under fire from gamers for its ending, which took a series that focused on player choice and storytelling and slapped an ending that was abstract, gave no answers, opened up more loose ends than it tied, and varied only in the color of the energy burst of literally the galaxy's largest Deus Ex Machina. There was quite a bit of fan outrage over this; some would arguably rightfully so, considering most had spent nearly $200 and hundreds of hours crafting their story with their own customized character, myself included.

Gaming press's response was to label their readership as entitled whiners.

IV
I bring these incidents up to show that the relationship between gaming press and gamers is far less cozy than between gaming press and publishers, which is why I think that the birth of 'the incident' was as painful as it was. Gamers knew AAA publishers had journalists in their pockets, but the indie developers were looked at as a breath of fresh air. Gamers knew, or at least thought they knew, that the coverage of indie devs was not bought and paid for like the AAA coverage.

Then it happened. Eron Gjoni -- by all rights someone that I probably couldn't stand to be in the same room with -- went public about what he (and people that have analyzed the evidence provided) felt was mental and emotional abuse at the hands of a woman he'd broken up with -- a woman who happened to be a game developer. There was an immediate immature and juvenile reaction to this, as people were tittering about with a hashtag.

No, not that hashtag. That came later.

1. First it was #Quinnspiracy, because in the infodump that Gjoni had made, there were allegations and admissions that Zoe Quinn had cheated on him with several people in the gaming industry, including not only writers for Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun, which had covered (if not in review form) her and her game positively, but also another developer who had been a judge at an indie games competition where her game, Depression Quest, had been nominated. 
2. A YouTuber called MundaneMatt did a brief news summary video about the post, and was hit with a DMCA notice by Zoe Quinn. 
3. In response, a much more popular YouTuber TotalBiscuit condemned the misuse of the DMCA notice and took a neutral stance. 
4. At Quinn's request, the Reddit thread where this was posted was turned into a graveyard of over 25,000 deleted comments. 
5. Contrary to how the media narrative has thus far suggested, this is where Zoe Quinn is no longer relevant to the debate. While any harassment she may have received during this time period is both regrettable and reprehensible, something happened shortly afterwards that caused events to move completely past her. 
6. August 27, 2014: Actor Adam Baldwin (Yes, that Adam Baldwin, of Chuck, Firefly, Full Metal Jacket, and The Last Ship. Also, a frequent voice actor in games) linked to a video (since removed) that detailed the allegations set forth in Gjoni's post with the first documented use of the hashtag #GamerGate.
7. August 28, 2014: The Financial Post, Ars Technica, The Daily Beast, The Stranger, Beta Beat, Gamasutra, Polygon, Kotaku, and more, release articles within a 24 hour period claiming “Gamers are Dead” and “The End of Gamers.” 

V
Since that time, I have observed one side has focus primarily on emailing advertisers and digging up other examples of corruption and cronyism, while another side has shifted its narrative time and again from “cis-white man-babies living in their mothers' basements” to “right-wing conspiracy movement” to “misogynists and harassers.”

Yet another side has just lit fires on both of the aforementioned sides and ran for the sheer fallout. The GNAA (Google it; I'm not going into that here) and goons from SomethingAwful have confirmed their involvement in this.

But discounting the obvious third-party trolls, I've seen some vile stuff slung from one side to the other. I've seen people called terrorists. “Worse than ISIS.” Recommendations that groups of people be herded into gas chambers. Echo chambers set up.

And it's not the side you think.

Edit: Some factual errors have been corrected

Next week: Born In Fire

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 1: An Introduction

Part 1: An Introduction
Part 2: A History Lesson
Part 3: Born in Fire
Part 4: Factions Form
Part 5: The Curious Tale of David Pakman


In Which I Present My Thesis Statement


The title concept here is one that's always interested me. It was first used in a poem, later converted to song, about the civil rights movement, and has been adapted in many forms including:

• a feminist subversion criticizing misogyny in hip-hop;
• The Artist Possibly Now Once Again Known As Prince doing something no doubt sexual; and 
• A Greek broadcasting company protesting austerity cuts. 

It's an interesting concept that deals in public image and how the media can shape a narrative regarding a conflict, no matter how large or small, how earth-shaking or insignificant. The title was also used -- with the most relevance, I feel -- by a documentary about Hugo Chavez's removal from office in Venezuela. The title comes into play in this film as a reference to alleged footage of Chavez's supporters firing on a protest march shown on Venezuelan television, which is contradicted by independent footage that shows the streets below empty, as the protest had never taken that route. Obviously, the media is a powerful weapon, but what would happen if one were to revolt against that weapon?

If one were to wage war against the media, how would one go about doing so? What would the public perception of that war be, if the ones shaping the public perception were one of the combatants? I'm hardly the first to weigh in on this, and will likely be far from the most artistic of word, but I feel it necessary to do so, considering that I have a vested interest in it.

As a form of disclosure, you all know that I'm a gamer. I've written several pieces about games in my tenure here at Erin's blog, as well as some posts critical of the popular games media.

On the other hand, I am a progressive liberal (as much as I find the tactics of those I share my political landscape with distasteful these days) and up until a few years ago called myself feminist, so I understand that threats and harassment are a problem, and one that isn't easily solved.

Due to timing, I've had to delay this series, and I feel a bit awkward walking in three months late to the party, but Doctor Who took precedence. So in the meantime I spent some time as sort of an "embedded journalist" (I use journalist as a metaphor. I'm an op-ed writer at best, and would shame some of my heroes were I to apply that term to myself). I've spent time browsing 8chan. I've checked in on Reddit's /r/KotakuInAction board, created when /r/TumblrInAction decided that particular brand of drama warranted its own space. I've also studied the stories put forth by outlets like TheVerge, Polygon, GamaSutra, and subreddits like /r/GamerGhazi. I've spoken to people on all sides (note how I didn't say both sides). I've put out a few inflammatory statements for the purpose of measuring replies. In short, I've done some goddamned homework on this issue.

A fair sight more work than I feel a lot of people have done, as I've seen a ton of people plagiarizing each other in manufactured outrage -- even people in the Gun-O-Sphere. That last bit particularly shocked me, as most of the outlets covering Gamergate have been liberal, and gunnies, in my experience, run mostly somewhere between conservative and libertarian (I'm not using those as slurs, unlike those same liberal media outlets would). Even more worrisome, I've seen talking points taken directly from websites like DailyDot, Salon, and Feministing that would happily throw gun owners to the wolves at the first opportunity.

 In short, this is a topic that's a lot more complicated than the liberal-biased media would lead you to believe. And, on a personal note, it's hard for me to write these words. I've always known that most media leans hard either left or right, but I admit that until recently I had no idea how pervasive it was. It's never pleasant having your eyes opened the hard way. The me of 10 years ago would never believe I would be writing these words now.

So far you've heard how there's this group of white, cis-male, misogynerd pissbabies living in their motherss basements who just want to harass a group of women and keep their exclusive boy's club. But I've seen things that break that narrative, and I'm going to share them over the coming weeks, because I cannot stand by and let people just be misled by a liberal media narrative any longer. 

As Captain Picard once said...

The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!

 Next week: A History Lesson