Indeed I did consider just ignoring the editors' success, rather than highlighting their (more common) failures by calling attention to it. I nevertheless stand by my decision to congratulate them.
Thank you,/., for posting an article about a woman in STEM that (for once) contains no clickbaiting headline, libel about entire groups committing discrimination & misogyny & harassment, nor the usual thinly veiled, anvilicious feminist agenda. It really is refreshing.
It wasn't one statement or even just one editorial. It was at least ten article across as many sites, all synchronized to launch a smear campaign that's still going on.
Most of the gaming press still tries to throw the word "mysogyny" around like a "Get Out of Journalistic Ethics Free" card. Your use of it doesn't fool anyone either.
Not true. The customer revolt exploded the day practically the entire online gaming press coordinated to declare their core audience "dead," in a clumsy and transparent attempt to cover-up their corruption. This signaled the end of the previous failed attempt, a universal news media blackout, which must be one of the most intense occurences of the Streisand Effect on record.
If this scandal had any relation to the Gamergate corruption, then there's no way the gaming press would even cover it. Anybody investigating the players would be said to be "harassing" them in articles, and they'd probably be called "misogynists" too, the players' actual genders be damned.
You bet. The "gamers are dead" articles signaled the start of the long-running, ongoing smear campaign. Gamergate is the long-running response to it. You are 100% a part of that smear campaign whether you realize it or not (and I think you do).
Nathan Grayson wrote a feature about 50 indie games. Its headline was a play on Depression Quest, and its illustration was a screeshot taken directly from Depression Quest. Depression Quest was also the first game he mentioned (and he called it "powerful").
So you replied even though you have no idea what the harassment patrol is. It's a part of Gamergate. And unlike the fringe elements of pro- and anti-Gamergate, it does not harass people or make death threats. It reports such behavior to the site owners and authorities.
Link to a single gamergate anything attacking this practice.
From this post and others, it's clear that you are horribly misinformed. But you should know that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after Nathan Grayson's and Patricia Hernandez's journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.
Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) coordinated smear campaign on August 28. None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with this embargo story, so there's nothing for Gamergate to point out.
In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of the embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then maybe a Gamergate-type revolt will be needed.
P.S. Similar AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) long before the journalists. No, Gamergate doesn't have any particular aversion to exposing indie or AAA corruption.
OK, try this. Go discuss these AAA review embargos on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.
Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that this AAA corruption story was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it aren't being called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. None the media's lies can ever change that fact.
P.S. Similar AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) were majorly publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) long before the journalists. You're severely misinformed or underinformed, or both.
I can't remember the last time FF gained a new feature I actually gave a fuck about. I've gotten completely accustomed to FF updates only removing/neutering useful features and covering the GUI in Play Dough. Multi-process support would be a genuinely meaningful upgrade for once, but I agree there's no way it would make up for Australis.
Criticism and mere disagreement (and exposing corruption, etc.) has been repeatedly called "harassment" by the anti-Gamergate side. They clearly cannot tell the difference, so thanks for acknowledging they are part of the problem. Seriously though, this is a transparent attempt to silence dissent, not to protect anyone. And you know it.
The people behind this want to effectively wield power comparable to the DMCA, including the ability to take down content (and authors) at will, with a widespread chilling effect and no consequence for false positives. We've already seen how easily terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment became the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
The former head of Marketing replaced Brendan Eich (who , by contrast, had been a co-founder, former lead architect and CTO) after he was forced out at CEO. Any other questions?
You know, maybe GamerGate was sparked by those events, but it's really not about that any more for me. The moment the unbelievable misogyny and the death threats started, it overshadowed everything else. I don't care who was behind it. Frankly, I think it actually exposed a problem far worse than anything related to journalistic integrity, and that's the lack of even the most basic tenets of civilization in many of our online communities. And actually, it's not just relegated to GamerGate.
You are being fooled and allowing the media to use "misogyny" and "harassment" as the root passwords to journalistic ethics, the same way politicians use "child porn" and "terrorism" as the root password to the Bill of Rights (you ever notice how/. usually doesn't fall for that scam?).
BTW, fortunately Gamergate also doesn't care who's behind any harassment, and goes to great lengths to discourage and report harassment from both sides.
It's not even about that one guy. This is a (repeated) tactic to slander other people who legitimately disagree with her, and distract from the Gamergate scandal.
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--it's averaged over 50K tweets per day for a while now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
The mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is Slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because most of those articles got 500-1200 replies each, so the Gawker-style clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, Slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you
It's sad how easily "children" and "terrorism"^W^W^W "misogyny" and "harassment" became the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
I agree that "Who cares" is a fair side to take. I'm skeptical that you're on that side, because you're "informed" enough to label one side misogynist twits and the other militant censors. And your analogy has you intervening in a conflict to set everyone straight, not ignoring and stepping away from it.
But for the sake of discussion, let's assume you truly don't care, and that there are many others like you. At least on Slashdot, don't you agree that they should clearly and honestly indicate that a story is about Gamergate, if only so those who aren't interested could avoid it?
One reason this topic pops up so suspiciously often lately is that Slashdot wants to cover Gamergate, but doesn't want to be upfront or honest that it's doing so (and taking a side). Two months in, there has yet to be a straightforward article summary/thread covering the journalistic lapses, the universal media blackout including user comment/forum censorship, and the desperate synchronized "Gamers Are Dead" propaganda blast.
Disagreement is not trolling. Refusing to fund contemptful clickbait is not trolling. Exposing corruption is not trolling. The submission template of "misogyny, harrassment, terrorism, misogyny, harrassment, terrorism . . . oh btw Gamergate" (even if the GG mention only comes in the extended summary or TFA) has one purpose: a thinly veiled smear. And it doesn't fool us.
Someone else accused Slashdot of censoring Gamergate coverage in the firehose, as in outright deleting multiple submissions that had been voted up. A year ago I still had enough respect for Slashdot to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the condescension and contempt demonstrated by the Beta fiasco and the abysmally one-sided GG submissions has taken care of that.
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--I think it's over 100K tweets per day now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
I see some of the mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because all those articles got 700-1200 replies each, so the clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you get no sympathy when it blows up in your face.
Ouya explicitly promised "Hackers Welcome" in their Kickstarter. A week before its launch I witnessed an Ouya engineer (Al Sutton) berating and insulting the customers who were shocked it didn't have a recovery mode.
His attitude about custom firmware was shocking as well:
I'm keeping a track of how many requests we get relating custom firmware, and from what I'm seeing the user base is not as interested in custom firmware as you might think, which is echoed by this thread (we've shipped 60,000+ units, and less than 10 people have commented in the last month in this thread about getting access to recovery mode).That doesn't mean that we're shooting the idea down, you need to keep in mind that in terms of priorities this is way down the list as you'd expect from any feature where it's being requested by less than one tenth of one percent of the user-base.
It really floored me to read this, given the kickstarter page's promises of hackability. Anyone with a reflashable phone (or any pretty much any other Android device whatsoever capable of using custom ROMS) knows that a real recovery mode is absolutely essential, in case the OS/kernel gets borked. Ouya's supposed "recovery mode" relies on an already-bootable OS, so it's useless.
How can you trust any product's promises of openness when it seems they can do a complete 180 with impunity after they have your money?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed I did consider just ignoring the editors' success, rather than highlighting their (more common) failures by calling attention to it. I nevertheless stand by my decision to congratulate them.
Thank you, /., for posting an article about a woman in STEM that (for once) contains no clickbaiting headline, libel about entire groups committing discrimination & misogyny & harassment, nor the usual thinly veiled, anvilicious feminist agenda. It really is refreshing.
It wasn't one statement or even just one editorial. It was at least ten article across as many sites, all synchronized to launch a smear campaign that's still going on.
Most of the gaming press still tries to throw the word "mysogyny" around like a "Get Out of Journalistic Ethics Free" card. Your use of it doesn't fool anyone either.
I believe you, but in this case I was referring to the investigators being libeled, not the players
Not true. The customer revolt exploded the day practically the entire online gaming press coordinated to declare their core audience "dead," in a clumsy and transparent attempt to cover-up their corruption. This signaled the end of the previous failed attempt, a universal news media blackout, which must be one of the most intense occurences of the Streisand Effect on record.
If this scandal had any relation to the Gamergate corruption, then there's no way the gaming press would even cover it. Anybody investigating the players would be said to be "harassing" them in articles, and they'd probably be called "misogynists" too, the players' actual genders be damned.
"One incident did define GG"
You bet. The "gamers are dead" articles signaled the start of the long-running, ongoing smear campaign. Gamergate is the long-running response to it. You are 100% a part of that smear campaign whether you realize it or not (and I think you do).
Nathan Grayson wrote a feature about 50 indie games. Its headline was a play on Depression Quest, and its illustration was a screeshot taken directly from Depression Quest. Depression Quest was also the first game he mentioned (and he called it "powerful").
Your "no review" strawman falls flat.
So you replied even though you have no idea what the harassment patrol is. It's a part of Gamergate. And unlike the fringe elements of pro- and anti-Gamergate, it does not harass people or make death threats. It reports such behavior to the site owners and authorities.
Glad I could clear that up.
posted first as AC by mistake
It's your kind of post they would target instead. Fortunately, those in Gamergate care about stopping shitty behavior on both sides.
Yes, I know you're (at least half) kidding.
Link to a single gamergate anything attacking this practice.
From this post and others, it's clear that you are horribly misinformed. But you should know that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after Nathan Grayson's and Patricia Hernandez's journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.
Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) coordinated smear campaign on August 28. None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with this embargo story, so there's nothing for Gamergate to point out.
In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of the embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then maybe a Gamergate-type revolt will be needed.
P.S. Similar AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) long before the journalists. No, Gamergate doesn't have any particular aversion to exposing indie or AAA corruption.
OK, try this. Go discuss these AAA review embargos on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.
Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that this AAA corruption story was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it aren't being called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. None the media's lies can ever change that fact.
P.S. Similar AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) were majorly publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) long before the journalists. You're severely misinformed or underinformed, or both.
I can't remember the last time FF gained a new feature I actually gave a fuck about. I've gotten completely accustomed to FF updates only removing/neutering useful features and covering the GUI in Play Dough. Multi-process support would be a genuinely meaningful upgrade for once, but I agree there's no way it would make up for Australis.
Criticism and mere disagreement (and exposing corruption, etc.) has been repeatedly called "harassment" by the anti-Gamergate side. They clearly cannot tell the difference, so thanks for acknowledging they are part of the problem. Seriously though, this is a transparent attempt to silence dissent, not to protect anyone. And you know it.
The people behind this want to effectively wield power comparable to the DMCA, including the ability to take down content (and authors) at will, with a widespread chilling effect and no consequence for false positives. We've already seen how easily terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment became the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
The former head of Marketing replaced Brendan Eich (who , by contrast, had been a co-founder, former lead architect and CTO) after he was forced out at CEO. Any other questions?
I use Pale Moon on Win7 but there's no Mac version AFAIK. On OSX I use Seamonkey, which is also superior to FF but breaks more extensions:
http://www.seamonkey-project.o...
You know, maybe GamerGate was sparked by those events, but it's really not about that any more for me. The moment the unbelievable misogyny and the death threats started, it overshadowed everything else. I don't care who was behind it. Frankly, I think it actually exposed a problem far worse than anything related to journalistic integrity, and that's the lack of even the most basic tenets of civilization in many of our online communities. And actually, it's not just relegated to GamerGate.
You are being fooled and allowing the media to use "misogyny" and "harassment" as the root passwords to journalistic ethics, the same way politicians use "child porn" and "terrorism" as the root password to the Bill of Rights (you ever notice how /. usually doesn't fall for that scam?).
BTW, fortunately Gamergate also doesn't care who's behind any harassment, and goes to great lengths to discourage and report harassment from both sides.
It's not even about that one guy. This is a (repeated) tactic to slander other people who legitimately disagree with her, and distract from the Gamergate scandal.
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--it's averaged over 50K tweets per day for a while now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
The mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is Slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because most of those articles got 500-1200 replies each, so the Gawker-style clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, Slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you
It's sad how easily "children" and "terrorism"^W^W^W "misogyny" and "harassment" became the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
I agree that "Who cares" is a fair side to take. I'm skeptical that you're on that side, because you're "informed" enough to label one side misogynist twits and the other militant censors. And your analogy has you intervening in a conflict to set everyone straight, not ignoring and stepping away from it. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume you truly don't care, and that there are many others like you. At least on Slashdot, don't you agree that they should clearly and honestly indicate that a story is about Gamergate, if only so those who aren't interested could avoid it?
One reason this topic pops up so suspiciously often lately is that Slashdot wants to cover Gamergate, but doesn't want to be upfront or honest that it's doing so (and taking a side). Two months in, there has yet to be a straightforward article summary/thread covering the journalistic lapses, the universal media blackout including user comment/forum censorship, and the desperate synchronized "Gamers Are Dead" propaganda blast.
Disagreement is not trolling. Refusing to fund contemptful clickbait is not trolling. Exposing corruption is not trolling. The submission template of "misogyny, harrassment, terrorism, misogyny, harrassment, terrorism . . . oh btw Gamergate" (even if the GG mention only comes in the extended summary or TFA) has one purpose: a thinly veiled smear. And it doesn't fool us.
Someone else accused Slashdot of censoring Gamergate coverage in the firehose, as in outright deleting multiple submissions that had been voted up. A year ago I still had enough respect for Slashdot to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the condescension and contempt demonstrated by the Beta fiasco and the abysmally one-sided GG submissions has taken care of that.
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--I think it's over 100K tweets per day now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
I see some of the mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because all those articles got 700-1200 replies each, so the clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you get no sympathy when it blows up in your face.
"GamerGate" and all the debates over who counts as a "gamer,"
I heard vicious shouts that gamers were dead, and those didn't come from Gamergate . . .
His attitude about custom firmware was shocking as well:
I'm keeping a track of how many requests we get relating custom firmware, and from what I'm seeing the user base is not as interested in custom firmware as you might think, which is echoed by this thread (we've shipped 60,000+ units, and less than 10 people have commented in the last month in this thread about getting access to recovery mode).That doesn't mean that we're shooting the idea down, you need to keep in mind that in terms of priorities this is way down the list as you'd expect from any feature where it's being requested by less than one tenth of one percent of the user-base.
It really floored me to read this, given the kickstarter page's promises of hackability. Anyone with a reflashable phone (or any pretty much any other Android device whatsoever capable of using custom ROMS) knows that a real recovery mode is absolutely essential, in case the OS/kernel gets borked. Ouya's supposed "recovery mode" relies on an already-bootable OS, so it's useless. How can you trust any product's promises of openness when it seems they can do a complete 180 with impunity after they have your money?