I first noticed "Gamergate" as a hashtag on Twitter, but since I wasn't a "gamer" as in someone who treats video games as a lifestyle, I didn't give it much attention.
But it did not go away, and it morphed from one thing, into another thing entirely. I'm still trying to understand this myself, so don't expect this to be the definitive, in fact, if any blanks can be filled in, please leave them in the comments.
As far as I can understand it started as a discussion of ethics in game journalism, then morphed into something darker, nastier, and more political, tarring the innocent with the guilty while ripping the gamer community apart.
From what I've been able to gather from all the accusations, calumnies, and outright nastiness, it began when gamers suspected that certain games and game developers were getting preferred treatment by game media (websites, magazines) in both coverage and reviews. Some light digging revealed that many important game journalists and editors were friends of, or moved in the same small social circles as, the developers who appeared to be getting preferential treatment. Also some reviewers and editors reportedly had donated to the Kickstarter campaigns of the games they were later reviewing.
I learned that this didn't sit right with a lot of gamers, since they rely on the game media to weed through the hype and give them a modicum of objectivity.
But that didn't last because the trolls took over.
Apparently, one of the developers in question is a woman, and the trolls took that as an open invitation to go completely batshit on her and on the whole issue of gamer gate. First came slanders of sexual improprieties in exchange for good coverage. This offended both sides of the issue, since it made many on the so-called "pro-Gamer gate" side look sleazy over something they personally didn't believe. The "anti-Gamer gate" side saw it as a sexist attack on a woman in a traditionally male-dominated field.
Then it got worse. First came the death and rape threats, and then came the "doxxing" which is where a person's private information is dumped onto social media so those making rape and death threats can have your home address.
The fact that these events were happening disproportionately to female participants quickly made the news. What doesn't make the news as much was that the threats and the doxxing was happening to women and men on both pro and anti gamer gate sides of the issue.
Where does that leave us?
Anyone who is seen as wanting to discuss ethics in gaming journalism is seen as "pro Gamer gate" and thus instantly branded as one of the threatening trolls, whether they have ever actually threatened anyone or not. So there's no point in asking any questions about gaming journalism, they're not only not going to be answered, they aren't going to be heard amid all the rancour and vitriol.
On the flip side those on the "ant-Gamer gate" side are branded "SJWs" or "Social Justice Warriors" and accused of slandering the innocent with the guilty to forward a political agenda. And aside from the regular threats and doxxing, are regularly accused of running so-called "false flag" operations using hoaxes to generate sympathy and support.
What's the lesson have I gathered from all this?
Nothing good will come from this.
Too many people on both sides of the issue, and even the middle, are tarring and being tarred with broad brushes.
Legitimate questions from both sides will never be answered, instead they just breed more accusations of everything from slander, to fraud, to terrorism.
It's the perfect encapsulation of modern life.
Unless you are an SJW, and I know you are not D, then here is the most illuminating and entertaining history of Gamergate I've seen so far:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dbi-8rPShE&feature=youtu.be
Master D, I've followed it a bit in passing and am willing to answer any and all questions you might have.
ReplyDeleteAnother good place to look is this post which reprinted an article that was taken down where 2 members of both sides were interviewed.
I'm not a "Gamer", but despite excesses on both sides, the basic upshot of the anti-Gamergate people seems to be that liberal women should be immune to charges of conflict of interest and de-facto bribery because they are, well, liberal women, and anyone who believes otherwise is scum. Obviously, this isn't really much of a position...
ReplyDeleteA few points of correction, D. While this is a better coverage than I thought:
ReplyDeleteGamergate (for whatever it has turned into now) did not "go batshit because Zoey Quinn was a woman."
They went after her because she was revealed (largely by an estranged ex-boyfriend)
in ethically dubious relations with people covering her product *without disclosing it.* That violates the standards of professional journalism (Hahaha as that is), and raised the obvious problem of bribery and instituting conflict of interest.
The original source is hardly the most reputable being on the planet, but I have yet to hear she or her defenders deny that she did what they are being accused of. Which she made worse by doing things like capitolizing on the suicide of Robin Williams to sell her product, and then faking an attack on herself to portray herself as the victim and then pinning it on a bunch of people *who are known to be depressive* without much if any actual evidence. Especially since actual LEOs advocate you not publicize these facts because in real life it breeds more.
Which might have been the point. Stunts like those probably helped cultivate the toxic environment you rightfully highlighted. And on some level I think it might have been intentional, so that "nothing good would come out of this."
So regardless of how far GG and its' opponents have fallen, the likes of Quinn are very, Very much a plague on video gaming and its' media. The fact that she is a woman is utterly incidental, as #NotYourShield gets into.
It had nothing to do with why she came under fire first, and it should not be why she is criticized and censured now.
I mentioned the allegations ethically dubious conflicts of interest in the paragraph before I used the term "batshit." The term "batshit" was used to describe trolls, who used the controversy as an excuse to hijack the issue.
ReplyDeleteI have also since learned that the same trolls have attacked people on both sides of the issue with similar levels of vitriol. Usually starting with accusations of sexual impropriety, and later threats and doxxings. Except attacks on pro-GGs don't get the same coverage as the anti-GGs.
That means that the trolls are the enemies of all.
Yes, you mentioned them. But in a way that seriously made it difficult to understand what the reference was. And I'll quote:
ReplyDelete"Apparently, one of the developers in question is a woman, and the trolls took that as an open invitation to go completely batshit on her and on the whole issue of gamer gate. First came slanders of sexual improprieties in exchange for good coverage. This offended both sides of the issue, since it made many on the so-called "pro-Gamer gate" side look sleazy over something they personally didn't believe. The "anti-Gamer gate" side saw it as a sexist attack on a woman in a traditionally male-dominated field."
As I mentioned above, this is a misconception. For all of the claim's merits or lack thereof, the claim of sex for coverage (or some other inappropriate conflict of interest) was and is a serious charge that was believed in by both GamersGate and many outside it who were not "trolls" like the scum doing the rest of the mayham. And one that hasn't been seriously disputed even by the people who were accused of it (who tend to want to paint it as something else, judging her because of the bedroom olympics themselves ala Moral Puritans rather than what the Bed Olympics might mean on her coverage).
So using the word "slander" not only makes it look like something that was categorically proven false- which it wasn't- but the "since it made many on the so-called "pro-Gamer gate" side look sleazy over something they personally didn't believe" misunderstands the fact that the Gamer Gate side generally does believe it.
It's just that the concern (at least at start) was over the impropriety and corruption it might mean, not the fact that she was a woman.
(Same poster as Anonymous above, forgot to leave a username).
Sorry I wasn't clear enough. It seems that anyone who writes about it needs an attorney to vet every word because passions are running hot.
ReplyDelete@Furious D
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and my apologies about that. I know the problem all too well, which was why I tried to keep my comments as far away from that territory as possible.
At present the entire thing is a pretty through mess. But I figure the origins are some of the easiest to pin down, especially since Quinn etc. al. had a fair bit to do with how the bar for this entire thing got lowered and it all went to the trolls.
We might not be able to learn much about it, but what we can might be useful.