6 ms·

Modern journalism is about using outrage to drive revenue. GamerGate faced (on a smaller scale) the same situation BLM faces today. If the audience is more outr

Modern journalism is about using outrage to drive revenue. GamerGate faced (on a smaller scale) the same situation BLM faces today. If the audience is more outraged/enthused at a group being moral crusaders then they'll push that angle. If casting them as dangerous criminals stands to generate more ad money and user engagement they'll do that instead.

pjc50 6y ago
Gamergate was an astroturf harassment operation. It was a prototype for so much of the politics we see today. Mentioning it as if BLM were in any way comparable is a dire insult to BLM.
- iagovar 6y ago
  Yeah, everything is a conspiracy.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  Who was astroturfing for what purpose?
- Causality1 6y ago
  Discussions about the relative morality of informal self-associating groups quickly becomes a No True Scotsman contest. "The real Gamergaters only cared about TFYC and the GameJournoPros cabal and the ones who harassed women were just opportunistic sexists" and "Only peaceful protesters count as BLM supporters and the ones looting small businesses are opportunistic criminals." Granted it's reasonably obvious a greater percentage of BLM supporters have pure intentions compared to the percentage of Gamergate supporters who did, but it's my position that an overall value judgment on informal groups is not useful. The bad actors don't affect the validity of the message. When someone argues that the riots are a good reason to dismiss the calls to end systemic police racism it's just an ad hominem fallacy writ large.
rewq4321 6y ago
> If the audience is more outraged/enthused at a group being moral crusaders then they'll push that angle. Well, yes. News companies are mostly reflections of their audiences, and if they weren't, they wouldn't exist. This is mostly a problem with the people, unless you want to try "top-down" media companies like China et al. That said, drawing an equivalence between the recent BLM protests and "Gamergate" is... a bit much. Gamergate is/was a toxic hell-hole of a movement in my opinion. Just a thin veil over a mass harassment campaign. But here's a series of video essays which gives the whole thing some nuance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ
- xenihn 6y ago
  I don't think you understood that user's post. It's not an equivalency between BLM and Gamergate, it's about the behavior of businesses that seek to make money, and how those businesses' actions in both cases have been similar.
  - Causality1 6y ago
    Exactly. You can do the legwork and come up with numbers that say "86 percent of this movement's members appear to have pure intentions" and feel good about it but ultimately it doesn't make a difference. Informal groups cannot be judged as a whole because they don't control their members. Media will always portray them in the most profitable way and it's our responsibility to make a value judgment on their central message and to hold bad actors individually responsible for their actions without bias one way or the other.

pjc50 6y ago

Gamergate was an astroturf harassment operation. It was a prototype for so much of the politics we see today. Mentioning it as if BLM were in any way comparable is a dire insult to BLM.

iagovar 6y ago
Yeah, everything is a conspiracy.
rndgermandude 6y ago
Who was astroturfing for what purpose?
Causality1 6y ago
Discussions about the relative morality of informal self-associating groups quickly becomes a No True Scotsman contest. "The real Gamergaters only cared about TFYC and the GameJournoPros cabal and the ones who harassed women were just opportunistic sexists" and "Only peaceful protesters count as BLM supporters and the ones looting small businesses are opportunistic criminals." Granted it's reasonably obvious a greater percentage of BLM supporters have pure intentions compared to the percentage of Gamergate supporters who did, but it's my position that an overall value judgment on informal groups is not useful. The bad actors don't affect the validity of the message. When someone argues that the riots are a good reason to dismiss the calls to end systemic police racism it's just an ad hominem fallacy writ large.

rewq4321 6y ago

> If the audience is more outraged/enthused at a group being moral crusaders then they'll push that angle. Well, yes. News companies are mostly reflections of their audiences, and if they weren't, they wouldn't exist. This is mostly a problem with the people, unless you want to try "top-down" media companies like China et al. That said, drawing an equivalence between the recent BLM protests and "Gamergate" is... a bit much. Gamergate is/was a toxic hell-hole of a movement in my opinion. Just a thin veil over a mass harassment campaign. But here's a series of video essays which gives the whole thing some nuance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ

xenihn 6y ago
I don't think you understood that user's post. It's not an equivalency between BLM and Gamergate, it's about the behavior of businesses that seek to make money, and how those businesses' actions in both cases have been similar.
- Causality1 6y ago
  Exactly. You can do the legwork and come up with numbers that say "86 percent of this movement's members appear to have pure intentions" and feel good about it but ultimately it doesn't make a difference. Informal groups cannot be judged as a whole because they don't control their members. Media will always portray them in the most profitable way and it's our responsibility to make a value judgment on their central message and to hold bad actors individually responsible for their actions without bias one way or the other.