Neeeek wrote:You have a really weird way of defining the start of something.
DSMatticus wrote:Zoe Quinn is the creator of Depression Quest. Her ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, came forward describing her infidelities with other industry figures. Someone uploaded a video on youtube about this, alleging corruption. It was taken down by a DMCA request in Zoe Quinn's name. These events...
If someone describes three events and then begins the next sentence with "these events," fuck it I'm tired you're dumb etcetera etcetera next paragraph.
Neeeek wrote:That said, Zoe Quinn is not a public figure by virtually any definition. She's a woman who wrote some code for a game.
Zoe Quinn has been a significant figure in social media since at least early 2014, when she got into a Twitter fight with The Fine Young Capitalists. During this exchange and in its aftermath, she and TFYC both contacted and were contacted by journalists, because their twitter fight was itself news worthy within the industry. Amusingly, it was during this twitter exchange that Maya Kramer (Zoe Quinn's PR agent) published some of Matthew Rappard's (figure behind TFYC) personal contact info which Zoe Quinn retweeted to her followers. Matthew Rappard claims having received a death threat as a result.
You really need to understand that yes, the people you are defending are victims, but they are also malicious and irresponsible victimizers, and the former does not excuse the latter.
Neeek wrote:It's called "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", and truth is not a defense. Of course, the accusations are also not true, as the primary person she was accused of sleeping with for a good review never, you know, actually reviewed the game in question.
I don't think there's any court on the planet which would declare that allegations of journalistic corruption aren't a legitimate public interest. This is entirely separate from the question of whether or not there exists a court which would declare that the allegations were both false and actionably negligent or malicious. It is also the case that facts which have already been made public are not liable, and so this would only ever apply to Eron Gjoni. But I am absolutely 100% certain that these are matters for a court to decide, and not to be resolved by individuals filing false DMCA claims. It's almost like there's some burden of proof that must be met before you can punish someone for their speech, let alone silence them. Annoying how that works.
Arioch wrote:Regarding the Zoe Quinn takedown thing, is there evidence she had videos criticizing her taken down?
Youtube does not require any verification and automatically rules in favor of complaints unless your channel is under a network large enough that it gets special status. It is complete and total bullshit.
The only evidence is that:
1) It was done in her name, and
2) it happened alongside a bunch of other acts of censorship which absolutely were her (articles being taken down because she contacted their hosts, reddit's mass purge), and
3) her close friends and supporters have viciously attacked people on twitter for as little as "I don't know if it was her, but if it was, then that's bullshit," and
4) she has spent months pointedly not responding to inquiries from figures both large and small.
It was
almost certainly her. Given that it was done in her name and those close to her will label you a misogynist for statements as benign as explicitly conditional condemnations, if it wasn't her it is incredibly remiss of her not to come forward and clear the air. Her supporters dragged John Bain's name through the mud and even threatened him with false DMCA claims of their own if he dared to review their games (no, really, at least one developer actually fucking did that, and yes that is also illegal) simply for suggesting that
if it was her
then she was in the wrong for having done so. And even if you dismiss the DMCA takedown, it is still true that all the other bullshit happened, and it was not a respectable request to "stop threats and harassment," it was an insane request to "stop people on the internet from talking about me... because some of those people are threatening and harassing me."
So yes, Zoe Quinn is in the wrong. The only real debate is about how in the wrong she is. But it's honestly not that important anymore; the conduct of Zoe Quinn is inconsequential next to the conduct of the journalistic community which rushed to her defense. The John Bain lynch mob happened. I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting those events. He made a very long post boiling down "I have no idea about this Zoe Quinn bullshit, but if she did the DMCA thing, that is unacceptable. Also, yes, the industry as a whole is very corrupt," and the response was unified rage. When that unified rage came off as insane tribalism and earned them even more piles of scorn, they published a bunch of articles implicitly labelling all of their detractors as misogynists. And since then, they have reinforced that narrative simply by having a monopoly on the spotlights and shining them solely on examples of misogyny and harassment that reinforce the narrative.
If John Bain's position doesn't offend you but the response to it does, then welcome to the club. If you don't think being offended by their response makes you a misogynist, then welcome to the club. If you think "#GamerGate is just a bunch of misogynists, here are some screenshots, remember that the plural of anecdote is data" is an incredibly shady way to try and slander Bain and those like him by proxy, then welcome to the club.
Virtually the only thing #GamerGate agrees on is that their treatment at the hands of the media has been complete and total bullshit. And amusingly, that is the one matter on which they are without doubt correct.