Digital retailer speaks out on #gamergate name confusion
Gamersgate CEO puts out public statement after receiving threats
The CEO of a game download service has been forced to issue a statement after the company received threats from members of the public who confused its name, Gamersgate, with the recent #gamergate movement.
"As many of you are aware of, recently there has been a fierce and infected discussion about sexism as well as journalistic ethics in the gaming industry. We've received threats and harsh words from around the world and want to make it clear for everyone that Gamersgate.com is not part of this controversy whatsoever," said Theodore Bergqvist in a public statement.
The company is also using social media to get the message out but at the time of writing the company's Twitter account, @Gamersgate, was still receiving messages like the one below.
As a fellow Gamer, I am really pissed off at immature assholes @GamersGate ! Death & rape threats? All because women want a say?
— Geek Demon (@KennithBouchard) October 23, 2014
The fact remains that there is a big difference between the violent, specific threats that people like Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian have been weathering - threats serious enough to make them fear for their lives and involve the FBI, remember - and the angry tweets I've seen directed at GamersGate; at a company rather than a specific person and her family.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 24th October 2014 11:37am
I don't blame people and / or companies for trying to get what they can out of a bad situation. Context is everything etc. I think going any further than that with regards to questioning incentives and motives is opening a massive can of worms; there are ways in our society for public victims to profit from things they have suffered; that isn't particular to this situation. Victims of high profile crimes can often end up benefiting financially in some way. Some people find it unseemly when this is done. Again, depends entirely on the context.
I get your point, though; there is little attempt to apply the same standards across the board. I could probably have made the same comment on some thread about Anita, and meant it genuinely as, "well, she might as well get some good out of this shitty thing that's happened to her", and been hammered for it. You could call that a double standard, but I'd say it's more being aware of the sensitivity around implying that someone is 'bringing this on themselves', or 'doing this for publicity'.
I'll say it a third time - *context is everything* :)
If people using the #gamergate tag actually have concerns about journalistic integrity, they are welcome to actually discuss that. But doing so under the banner of #gamergate will not get them very far. GamerGate is about abuse.
The tweet shown is in no way a threat. Is it wrong to call people "assholes" (even when they act like one)? Yes, a bit. Is it more wrong to threaten someone with death/rape? In my opinion, yes. Absolutely.
As to "plenty of pro-GG people have reported threats" I've yet to be shown a single death or rape threat against a pro-GG individual, let alone one that uses a person's real name, address etc. I'm open to the idea that some people in the pro-GG camp have made such threats, but until I see one, I'm going to take the assertions with a pinch of salt. I've tried searching for threats against pro-GG folk, but couldn't find anything.
This line of thinking follows a popular trend, where complex issues are reduced down to blaming a very small group of individuals. An entire generation has grown up knowing nothing else but a type of argument where all the evils of the world are projected onto an antagonistic individual who is to blame. Now the lessons learned from the media's way of portraying the war on terror is applied to video gaming. Verbally abusing certain people until they leave the industry will have the same effect as killing Bin Laden had on international terrorism: little to none. Because those people are not the cause of the problem, they are the result of problems remaining unchecked.
We have certainly seen more grown up strategies as well, such as going after advertisers. But the more vile gamergate gets down the road, the less traction it will create with moderate people interested in the original issues. Gamergate had a point and long term this point will come up again and someday even resolved in the interest of consumers. But currently gamersgate is just an experiment in how to apply abusive language and personal information while feeling empowered doing so. However, it is a fake feeling of empowerment, even if persons react to it by moving away. Because the reasons that prompted this behavior remain unchanged and gamergate is not even trying to tackle them in a way that they might get resolved.
Although, the Brianna Wu autism one is discredited as the message was sent from a fake account "gaI" instead of "gal". Which the story failed to update despite being notified in the comment section. (So -1 point for being a bit lazy.) The Milo syringe incident was deplorable, as was the Total Biscuit thing and the doxxing.
One final thought. People choose to join GamerGate despite it's well publicised extremist fanatics. Those of us who disagree with the methods of fanatics in that group did not choose to join any group, any crazies that didn't join GG are therefore still hanging around. As such, it's a lot harder (rightly or wrongly) to tar those not in favour of GG with the actions of the crazies who didn't join GG and are currently threatening GG folk. In short, we all had to put up with idiot gamers sending death threats over e.g. changing gun stats in CoD long before there were sides to be on. GG seems to have a disproportionate number of them compared to "the rest of us".
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Craig Burkey on 24th October 2014 4:26pm
Kinda ironic that so many 'gamers' wilfully misread her article and formed an angry mob full of aggressive, socially stunted, sexist young men, huh?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 24th October 2014 4:43pm
Worth reading, not just because it's a fantastic essay, but also because it and Leigh's piece aimed for the same literary standards and concepts (in my opinion).
And just look at that title, would you?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 24th October 2014 5:09pm
1) The #GamerGate hashtag is a point of organization, despite the huge variety of people behind it. Making a new hashtag would only splinter the group.
2) Any new hashtag would simply be associated with the old one and wouldn't change anyone's opinions.
3) Most importantly, there is absolutely nothing stopping the harassers from using the new tag, again defeating its purpose.
As for the name it's just yet another reference to watergate, just like everything else that ends in -gate
I disagree here, possibly just through optimism.
1- That's part of the problem though - GG frequently claims 'unification' and a lack of central authority. The harassers aren't "true GG" people, etc. You can't have it both ways - either you have a central authority that speaks for the whole, or everyone can speak on their behalf, including the crackpots and jerks.
Splintering the group would at least be an attempt to differentiate themselves from the harassment. I'm all for improving gaming journalism, which is ostensibly a goal for GG - I'd support some new hashtag that represented that, instead of that plus all the baggage.
2- I don't think it'd be pointless at all. The entire thing is symbolic, and that'd be a symbolic gesture. At this point, I don't think there's anything to lose - #gg is hopelessly mired by the harassment, and legitimate complaints coming out of it are going to get 'rebutted' by pointing to the harassment, which doesn't help any kind of dialog or improvement to happen
3- Absolutely they could, and I think they probably would, but again, the symbolic gesture would be there. Right now, there's a perception (fair or not) that #gg is disingenuous, because of the claiming centralism and dispersion of responsibility. This is the only thing I can think of to try to address that.
That said, I would have far far more respect for GG'ers if they refocussed the issue entirely onto identity. Viewed as an identity issue, so much of what is happening comes into stark-relief, from both perspectives. The attacks on SJWs, the (perhaps tenuous) link to "herpa-derp" simplification of gaming, the idea that if you're against GG, you're anti-gaming. I mentioned on a different thread someone who unfollowed me because I linked to the Polygon article on ethics. Here's another thing he said:
Part of why GG seems so hard to quell is that people's identities are linked to the games they buy, and this has only increased as publishers and manufacturers have egged this mind-set on (all the way back to Sega v Nintendo in the 80s). This is why I find the lack of pubs/mans statements so hard to stomach - they've created this situation (at least in part) and have benefitted from it (certainly in the past, though perhaps to a lesser extent nowadays), but still they sit silently. I find myself losing more respect for pubs with this silent attitude than I ever did with whatever else they have done in the past.
(apologies if this is apropos-of-nothing... Shouldn't have had that extra glass of white. :p )
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 24th October 2014 9:29pm
You know, for once, I actually agree with something you said, without reservation. So, take a look at GamersHeadlines. Perhaps you don't think a feminist telling a woman that she will Doxx her, and give her over to the cartels to be raped (she's form Mexico) qualifies.
Or maybe (GGMember) What about ruining someone's livelihood? Now, here is my issue. One of the major things the feminist segment of this thing has cried foul over is the targeting of women. Yet, here we see two cases where women were targeted by feminist. Isn't that a little self-defeating?
This is why I refuse to identify with feminism or GamersGate, despite agreeing with issues mentioned by both groups.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Richard Vaught on 25th October 2014 6:00am
I was offended by Leigh's article, and I'm a 31 year old married woman. Hers was the straw that broke the camel's back. Sam Biddle didn't help with his bullying nerds remarks
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tanya Rei Myoko on 25th October 2014 8:34pm