You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate.

[dragoongfa]

There's really no way to know if they were regularly reported, or whether it was all done by said goons. Those can only be assumptions.

Either way, though, it doesn't truly matter-- this is in keeping with their style. Every word posted across an entire board will be randomly replaced. People will be banned for preferring regular milk to chocolate milk. If a certain topic kept causing a headache for the moderators, whatever it was, I wouldn't expect them to be particularly light-handed.

So in essence the mods didn't like the discussion and banned it. That certainly didn't portray 4chan as a free discussion board does it? May be unrelated to GG but with the rest that is going on I find it troubling to say the least.

"Censorship" is a very dramatic term. It usually refers to the actions of oppressive states, or public institutions that threaten legal consequences. Using it for a scenario in which an Internet forum won't let you talk about something, so people must go to one of the thousands of other Internet forums where they may freely talk about the same stuff.... that makes it difficult to take seriously. It devalues the word.

I saw the stuff on Reddit already. Of course, it's far from conclusive.


We do not agree it was a call for censorship. That is devaluing a tremendously important word, in my view. People still have plenty of avenues to discuss the same thing. Discussion is perfectly possible.

But there is a big difference in regards to various forums is there?

Some of these forums are far reaching with tens of thousands of visitors each day, if all of these forums banned discussion of a certain topic, then that means that the discussion will not be seen by the visitors in question.

Banning the discussion from the most visible forums greatly limits the visibility of the discussion in question, this is an active suppression of the discussion.

Isn't this the very definition of censorship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

In the second link, the person repeats several unsubstantiated accusations. I'm quite okay with banning accounts for slander.

I agree that some of what he posted was unsubstantiated but the rest were valid concerns. It is my philosophy that it is not fair to dismiss everything because some of it is bad.

I did see that video. He comes across as rather pretentious, but not abusive.

If his account was reinstated, I'm not sure what the problem here is. Those kinds of things happen all the time.

He did end up losing a lot of his followers as a result and it was a failed attempt to suppress his voice.

 

[Carrington666]

Given that I showed that it;s hosted on AEI, has the AEI mark, promoted and hosted exclusively on AEI (CHS has no personal website or channel) and that the series has an FF team. Hell the damn videos all ask people to like us (as in AEI) on facebook and twitter and link back to AEI. This is an AEI series of videos.

I'd say my burden of proof has been met.

So then, everything that everyone already knew? The same information that didn't stop them from making the claim of independence in the first place?

If people know the points Iarem brought up and still claim that the video is independent from AEI than they are not acting intellectually honest. And since they have proven that they will ignore facts that go contrary to what they belive and will twist things until they fit their narrative, everything they say on this topic should be viewed with suspicion.

After all, if they lie on this aspect of the topic, why should people belive when they claim something else?

 

[Silvanus]

So in essence the mods didn't like the discussion and banned it. That certainly didn't portray 4chan as a free discussion board does it? May be unrelated to GG but with the rest that is going on I find it troubling to say the least.

4chan is "free" in the sense that discussion goes on about a million different things, there. It is not free in that moderators may do what they want (as is true of many forums), if something is causing them a headache. They banned discussion of Boxxy, for a while, because it was getting old and repetitive. It's the same kind of thing here. It should never have been used as a go-to place for discussions on this movement in the first place.

But there is a big difference in regards to various forums is there?

Some of these forums are far reaching with tens of thousands of visitors each day, if all of these forums banned discussion of a certain topic, then that means that the discussion will not be seen by the visitors in question.

Banning the discussion from the most visible forums greatly limits the visibility of the discussion in question, this is an active suppression of the discussion.

Isn't this the very definition of censorship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

All such forums haven't banned discussion. A few have, which is their prerogative. There are still countless other outlets, so I would argue that speech has not been "suppressed" in any meaningful way (to quote that article).

Do you not see the hyperbole in using that term? It's like referring to the removal of gamergate threads as oppression. These terms refer to situations far more dire and repressive than the one we find ourselves in.

I agree that some of what he posted was unsubstantiated but the rest were valid concerns. It is my philosophy that it is not fair to dismiss everything because some of it is bad.

If somebody takes part in slander, it does not excuse it that they also said some things which were not slander.

He did end up losing a lot of his followers as a result and it was a failed attempt to suppress his voice.

Some people reported it because they didn't like it, or perhaps thought it constituted breaking the rules-- which happens all the time. Twitter un-banned him. There's really no issue here.

 

[Kingjackl]

I'm finding it harder and harder to agree with the sentiment expressed in the title of this thread. Whether or not you believe GamerGate represents a vocal minority, even a vocal minority can have a harmful effect. In terms of career safety, I get the feeling that anyone wanting to hold onto a career in the games industry would be better off speaking out against GG, or better yet, staying quiet altogether.

The problem is, there have been too many reports of figures in the industry receiving harassment, attempts at censorship and even death threats. While I personally don't believe online death threats are worth much unless they demonstrate provable capacity to harm (eg displaying knowledge of your home address, friends and relatives, that sort of thing), they can have a harmful effect on a person's psyche and they are in no way justifiable as discourse. If I were someone with a reputation in this industry, I think I would be concerned about speaking out, whether I was praising or condemning.

 

[dragoongfa]

All such forums haven't banned discussion. A few have, which is their prerogative. There are still countless other outlets, so I would argue that speech has not been "suppressed" in any meaningful way (to quote that article).

Do you not see the hyperbole in using that term? It's like referring to the removal of gamergate threads as oppression. These terms refer to situations far more dire and repressive than the one we find ourselves in.

I don't disagree that they have the freedom to ban discussion of the topic in their forums.

But they shouldn't cry foul when we point out that they banned the discussion and that they also tried to ban the discussion from this forum here as well.

As for the use of censorship I am sorry but the very definition of the word includes the suppression and the attempted suppression of discussion:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

They deemed the discussion politically incorrect and inconvenient for themselves and they banned it from wherever they could reach.

That is censorship.

If somebody takes part in slander, it does not excuse it that they also said some things which were not slander.

From of my personal experience of dealing with political extremists I will have to disagree. Denying everything because of something rotten is a fallacy

That poster's case was the most confrontational example but you didn't say what you thought the defacement of the posts of other people and the mass deletes of comments from the first anti-gg article.

Some people reported it because they didn't like it, or perhaps thought it constituted breaking the rules-- which happens all the time. Twitter un-banned him. There's really no issue here.

Again isn't this the very definition of censorship?

EDIT: Typos.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't disagree that they have the freedom to ban discussion of the topic in their forums.

But they shouldn't cry foul when we point out that they banned the discussion and that they also tried to ban the discussion from this forum here as well.

As for the use of censorship I am sorry but the very definition of the word includes the suppression and the attempted suppression of discussion:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

They deemed the discussion politically incorrect and inconvenient for themselves and they banned it from wherever they could reach.

That is censorship.

Firstly, it has not been demonstrated that they did this because it was "politically incorrect or inconvenient". That is not the reason given, and I'm not convinced either.

Secondly, I do not believe removal of topics from an Internet forum-- when there are countless others-- constitutes "suppression".

So, for those reasons, i do not believe it is "censorship".

From of my personal experience of dealing with political extremists I will have to disagree. Denying everything because of something rotten is a fallacy

That poster's case was the most confrontational example but you didn't say what you thought the defacement of the posts of other people and the mass deletes of comments from the first anti-gg article.

Banning somebody for an infraction is not 'denying' everything they say. Look here on the Escapist. If somebody breaks the rules, they may be banned. This is not 'denying' everything they have ever written on the forum. They were banned for the infraction.

I've had a look around, but can only find unsubstantiated claims from Reddit (and a few rather unsavoury blogs) on the mass-deleting thing. If comments were deleted merely for disagreeing, that's one thing, but there seem to be a number of people who act aggressively or slanderously and then, when suspended or banned, claim that it's just because they spoke out.

Again isn't this the very definition of censorship?

No, because it doesn't constitute "suppression" in any meaningful way, and because in these cases it has not been demonstrated to be because they were "politically incorrect or inconvenient".

I would encourage people to drop hyperbolic, loaded terms like that. It makes it far more difficult for those in the middle to take it seriously. The use of such phrases damages the cause.

 

[Calbeck]

"You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate"

>implying anyone is afraid of taking a public stance because "GamerGate is worse than ISIS"

Protip: extreme hyperbole only makes the people you oppose look better to those still on the fence.

 

[Pinkamena]

It's no that I'm afraid, I just really, really don't give a shit.

 

[Carrington666]

If people know the points Iarem brought up and still claim that the video is independent from AEI than they are not acting intellectually honest. And since they have proven that they will ignore facts that go contrary to what they belive and will twist things until they fit their narrative, everything they say on this topic should be viewed with suspicion.

After all, if they lie on this aspect of the topic, why should people belive when they claim something else?

Just because it is hosted on a particular channel and branded by a particular channel does not mean that it wasn't "independent" in the sense that the channel didn't tell her to say these things.

Let's take Yatzee for an example. Yatzee started on Youtube and then Escapist bought him up. He no longer publishes ZP videos to his Youtube channel anymore because it's probably in his contract not to compete with The Escapist regarding this series.

The Escapist endorses him on their site, just like AEI endorses the Factual Feminist.
The Escapist is in the credits of ZP, just like AEI is in the credits of the Factual Feminist.
ZP is branded by The Escapist, just like FF is branded by AEI
ZP is hosted exclusively on The Escapist, just like FF is hosted exclusively on AEI's channel.

Nobody is claiming that Yatzee's ZP videos aren't independent of The Escapist Magazine, are they?

Nobody is claiming that ZP is the product of some Escapist "think tank", or that The Escapist tells him what to say or how to say it to enforce some narrative, do they? No. Nobody says that.

So no, I don't think it follows that endorsement, branding, and exclusivity means that the work isn't intellectually independent, because nobody is accusing ZP that it's not, even though it checks all the same boxes that the Factual Feminist does in with it's relationship with AEI.

And by "intellectually independent", I mean: "A product of the content producer's own mind as opposed to a script or a list of talking points handed down by the employer."

Maybe nobody claims that ZP is not the product of an Escapist "think tank" because the Escapist is not a "think tank"?
AEI on the other hand is, to quote Wikipedia, "a private, conservative, not-for-profit organisation (a "think tank")"

Since she is working for this conservative "think tank" and said conservative "think tank" publishes her videos it is fair to argue that a "Conservative Critic Argues That Game Culture Is For Guys" (Bottom right article from Ultratwinkie's picture).

Can you argue that she represents the whole "think tank", like the rest of the articles do?
It depends on if this site produced an article or video that contradicts her views. If they did, than it is only her view and you cannot claim that it is the view of the site.
If they didn't, than yes, I believe it is fair to argue that that piece represents the opinion of the whole group.

 

[Calbeck]

Firstly, it has not been demonstrated that they did this because it was "politically incorrect or inconvenient". That is not the reason given

Actually, the reason given is that discussion of GamerGate amounts to harassment. That is, indeed, the rationale which was used to try and shut down similar discussion here on The Escapist, a rationale which Greg Tito (hardly a fan of the movement) eschewed.

You appear to be misinformed.

Secondly, I do not believe removal of topics from an Internet forum-- when there are countless others-- constitutes "suppression".

sup·press
transitive verb \sə-ˈpres\

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue

2b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Again, you appear to be misinformed. You would be more correct to admit the suppression, but to assert (as the suppressors have done) that the act was legal and not an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

 

[dragoongfa]

snipped

Sorry for cutting the quote, it's just that I am a little tired and I want to condense my argument as tightly as possible.

I want to point out that GamerGate is a Gaming related movement and us thus it belongs mainly in mainstream forums and media.

The fact is that of all the mainstream gaming sites only the Escapist has allowed open discussion of it and judging by how Ben Kuchera and co tried to 'convince' Greg Tito to stop the discussion here as well then I am certain that a small clique of people actively tried to suppress the discussion and limit the exposure of their audience to it.

I see this as censoring.

Yes the Internet is infinite but the places where the discussion has merit in are few and in most of them the discussion has been disallowed. The audience for this discussion are gamers and as I said already only the Escapist has allowed this discussion to go unabated.

Yes the evidence is tentative at best but I doubt that we could ever offer something as solid as the police cracking down on dissenters since everything is happening on the Internet and not in real life.

 

[Calbeck]

Since she is working for this conservative "think tank" and said conservative "think tank" publishes her videos it is fair to argue that a "Conservative Critic Argues That Game Culture Is For Guys" (Bottom right article from Ultratwinkie's picture).

So you agree that feminism is neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal" issue, since we're talking about videos created by a feminist which argue against the extremists of her own movement?

Also, you dodged the issue of conflating the critic's personal political stance with that of the think tank as a whole... by once again conflating the critic's personal political stance with that of the think tank as a whole.

It's the same error as claiming all liberals are Democrats.

 

[Silvanus]

Sorry for cutting the quote, it's just that I am a little tired and I want to condense my argument as tightly as possible.

I want to point out that GamerGate is a Gaming related movement and us thus it belongs mainly in mainstream forums and media.

The fact is that of all the mainstream gaming sites only the Escapist has allowed open discussion of it and judging by how Ben Kuchera and co tried to 'convince' Greg Tito to stop the discussion here as well then I am certain that a small clique of people actively tried to suppress the discussion and limit the exposure of their audience to it.

I see this as censoring.

Yes the Internet is infinite but the places where the discussion has merit in are few and in most of them the discussion has been disallowed. The audience for this discussion are gamers and as I said already only the Escapist has allowed this discussion to go unabated.

Yes the evidence is tentative at best but I doubt that we could ever offer something as solid as the police cracking down on dissenters since everything is happening on the Internet and not in real life.

There are forums dedicated specifically to the movement. There is Reddit, the Escapist, Twitter.

The disallowing of discussion on these topics on /v/, NeoGAF, and Cracked (if it happened) are not terribly significant to the debate.

Please note, though, that I agree banning topics is a crappy way to go about it, and would only breed resentment.

Actually, the reason given is that discussion of GamerGate amounts to harassment. That is, indeed, the rationale which was used to try and shut down similar discussion here on The Escapist, a rationale which Greg Tito (hardly a fan of the movement) eschewed.

You appear to be misinformed.

No, that was not the reason given [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/832/349/1f2.png]. He did not say that discussion in itself constitutes harassment; he didn't use the term 'harassment' at all.

sup·press
transitive verb \sə-ˈpres\

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue

2b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Again, you appear to be misinformed. You would be more correct to admit the suppression, but to assert (as the suppressors have done) that the act was legal and not an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

I would argue that debate has not been put down, stopped or prohibited in any meaningful sense, as it is still going on in a thousand different outlets.

Private forums reserve the right to decide what will be discussed (or to enforce their own rules). To deem it "censorship" would be to lose perspective of the baggage that term carries, historically and culturally, and to devalue the word.

Your tone is patronising.

 

[laraem]

Sorry for cutting the quote, it's just that I am a little tired and I want to condense my argument as tightly as possible.

I want to point out that GamerGate is a Gaming related movement and us thus it belongs mainly in mainstream forums and media.

The fact is that of all the mainstream gaming sites only the Escapist has allowed open discussion of it and judging by how Ben Kuchera and co tried to 'convince' Greg Tito to stop the discussion here as well then I am certain that a small clique of people actively tried to suppress the discussion and limit the exposure of their audience to it.

I see this as censoring.

Yes the Internet is infinite but the places where the discussion has merit in are few and in most of them the discussion has been disallowed. The audience for this discussion are gamers and as I said already only the Escapist has allowed this discussion to go unabated.

Yes the evidence is tentative at best but I doubt that we could ever offer something as solid as the police cracking down on dissenters since everything is happening on the Internet and not in real life.

There are forums dedicated specifically to the movement. There is Reddit, the Escapist, Twitter.

The disallowing of discussion on these topics on /v/, NeoGAF, and Cracked (if it happened) are not terribly significant to the debate.

Please note, though, that I agree banning topics is a crappy way to go about it, and would only breed resentment.

Actually, the reason given is that discussion of GamerGate amounts to harassment. That is, indeed, the rationale which was used to try and shut down similar discussion here on The Escapist, a rationale which Greg Tito (hardly a fan of the movement) eschewed.

You appear to be misinformed.

No, that was not the reason given [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/832/349/1f2.png]. He did not say that discussion in itself constitutes harassment; he didn't use the term 'harassment' at all.

sup·press
transitive verb \sə-ˈpres\

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue

2b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Again, you appear to be misinformed. You would be more correct to admit the suppression, but to assert (as the suppressors have done) that the act was legal and not an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

I would argue that debate has not been put down, stopped or prohibited in any meaningful sense, as it is still going on in a thousand different outlets.

Private forums reserve the right to decide what will be discussed (or to enforce their own rules). To deem it "censorship" would be to lose perspective of the baggage that term carries, historically and culturally, and to devalue the word.

Your tone is patronising.

Hell you can still talk about it on NeoGaf you just can't act like a massive conspiracy crackpot.

 

[Carrington666]

snip

snip

The only thing I argue for is that if one site publishes excactly one article/video etc. about a topic, than this article/video can be seen as the opinion of that site. If a site publishes multiple articles/videos about a topic that share the same tenor, but non with a contrary viewpoint, than this tenor can and probaby should be seen as the general opinion of that site.
If a site publishes multiple articles/videos about a topic with multiple viewpoints, than these viewpoints should be seen as the viewpoint of the author.

This is the same reason why I'd argue that the boycott of Gamasutra and other sites is perfectly valid. They published one opinion piece and none that contradicts it, so it's fair to boycott the whole site.
However you cannot hold one page accountable for one article and seperate another article from its page.
You either have to say that if one page publishes one article than this article represents the opinion of the page, or every article is divorced from the page it is published and it stands on its own. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[CymbaIine]

This is the same reason why I'd argue that the boycott of Gamasutra and other sites is perfectly valid. They published one opinion piece and none that contradicts it, so it's fair to boycott the whole site.

I think the boycott thing is fantastic. I mean I "boycott" The Daily Mail because I find it to be fucking toxic and I can't trust anything I read on it because of their politics. I think people who have a problem with the political leanings of a news site should absolutely not read it. What I don't understand is why they think nobody else should be able to.