3 ms·

That sounds like you're someone who's very easily manipulated by psy-ops done by the companies themselves, then.

by derefr 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> someone who's very easily manipulated by psy-ops done by the companies themselves You’re alleging Unity fabricated these death threats?
- davikr 3y ago
  Not necessarily, but they could have an interest in spotlighting death threats written by individuals not in the industry (gamers) to showcase how everyone rallying against one of their actions is bad: which is precisely what happened to the OP of this chain.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > they could have an interest in bringing death threats written by individuals not in the game development industry Sure? It’s still a death threat. Sending employees home has a real cost. The existence of death threats, moreover, is unlikely to change developers’ hearts and minds. The nuttier ones will write it off as a conspiracy theory. Most will see it as irrelevant to their interests. People who make death threats don’t need to underwrite their insanity. Their incoherence doesn’t make them less dangerous.
    - davikr 3y ago
      I don't think there is any conspiracy or "psyop" involved in writing fake threats or sending people home for PR points in this case, but I'd be pressed to change my opinion over nutjobs (in this case, probably gamers) being violent.
- kadoban 3y ago
  I would suggest that every company over a certain size gets a certain number of death threats. If, hypothetically, a company just managed to piss off, I don't know...everyone, one strategy to garner some cheap sympathy and have an excuse to cancel public gatherings might be to highlight some of those they were getting all the time anyway.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > every company over a certain size gets a certain number of death threats Citation needed. I’ve never worked at a firm that received a death threat. If we did, I would expect it to be taken very seriously by senior management and law enforcement.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      > I’ve never worked at a firm that received a death threat. If we did, I would expect it to be taken very seriously by senior management and law enforcement. You expect it would be? IOW, you wouldn't automatically be told about a death threat, so you wouldn't know if the company received a death threat. I've worked for at least two companies that received "death threats"; I've also worked with folks who were individually stalked, unrelated to their job. Most "death threats" are vague and unsubstantiated: some (pseudo) anonymous e-mail threatening general violence. They're so common that most companies (and the police) ignore them. A _specific_ threat will usually get reported to and acted upon by the police, but that often requires naming an individual person and something else, like a specific place or a weapon or such. As a general statement, I would agree with the person who wrote above, "that every company over a certain size gets a certain number of death threats."
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you wouldn't automatically be told about a death threat, so you wouldn't know if the company received a death threat I would, in the last ten years. > Most "death threats" are vague and unsubstantiated: some (pseudo) anonymous e-mail threatening general violence These (e.g. “I hope you all die*) aren’t typically referred to as death threats. Any one of naming a target, specifying a method or stating personal intent (versus generally hoping harm befalls one) qualifies as a death threat.
- exac 3y ago
  He isn't. He is saying that if a company simply says they have received death-threats from someone or some people, then his view of the entire community changes, and he aligns himself with the company. If the community consensus was to encourage their members to make these types of threats, then he would have more standing. It isn't.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > his view of the entire community changes, and he aligns himself with the company That never happens. Self interest trumps notions of decency. (Particularly in the context of just a threat, regardless of how credible.) Is the timing convenient for management? Sure. Never let a crisis go to waste. Does that make their actions imprudent? Of course not. They’re a video game company. These aren’t stakes worth gambling against lives.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

That sounds like you're someone who's very easily manipulated by psy-ops done by the companies themselves, then.

by derefr 3y ago

That sounds like you're someone who's very easily manipulated by psy-ops done by the companies themselves, then.

> someone who's very easily manipulated by psy-ops done by the companies themselves You’re alleging Unity fabricated these death threats?

davikr 3y ago
Not necessarily, but they could have an interest in spotlighting death threats written by individuals not in the industry (gamers) to showcase how everyone rallying against one of their actions is bad: which is precisely what happened to the OP of this chain.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they could have an interest in bringing death threats written by individuals not in the game development industry Sure? It’s still a death threat. Sending employees home has a real cost. The existence of death threats, moreover, is unlikely to change developers’ hearts and minds. The nuttier ones will write it off as a conspiracy theory. Most will see it as irrelevant to their interests. People who make death threats don’t need to underwrite their insanity. Their incoherence doesn’t make them less dangerous.
  - davikr 3y ago
    I don't think there is any conspiracy or "psyop" involved in writing fake threats or sending people home for PR points in this case, but I'd be pressed to change my opinion over nutjobs (in this case, probably gamers) being violent.
kadoban 3y ago
I would suggest that every company over a certain size gets a certain number of death threats. If, hypothetically, a company just managed to piss off, I don't know...everyone, one strategy to garner some cheap sympathy and have an excuse to cancel public gatherings might be to highlight some of those they were getting all the time anyway.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > every company over a certain size gets a certain number of death threats Citation needed. I’ve never worked at a firm that received a death threat. If we did, I would expect it to be taken very seriously by senior management and law enforcement.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > I’ve never worked at a firm that received a death threat. If we did, I would expect it to be taken very seriously by senior management and law enforcement. You expect it would be? IOW, you wouldn't automatically be told about a death threat, so you wouldn't know if the company received a death threat. I've worked for at least two companies that received "death threats"; I've also worked with folks who were individually stalked, unrelated to their job. Most "death threats" are vague and unsubstantiated: some (pseudo) anonymous e-mail threatening general violence. They're so common that most companies (and the police) ignore them. A _specific_ threat will usually get reported to and acted upon by the police, but that often requires naming an individual person and something else, like a specific place or a weapon or such. As a general statement, I would agree with the person who wrote above, "that every company over a certain size gets a certain number of death threats."
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you wouldn't automatically be told about a death threat, so you wouldn't know if the company received a death threat I would, in the last ten years. > Most "death threats" are vague and unsubstantiated: some (pseudo) anonymous e-mail threatening general violence These (e.g. “I hope you all die*) aren’t typically referred to as death threats. Any one of naming a target, specifying a method or stating personal intent (versus generally hoping harm befalls one) qualifies as a death threat.
exac 3y ago
He isn't. He is saying that if a company simply says they have received death-threats from someone or some people, then his view of the entire community changes, and he aligns himself with the company. If the community consensus was to encourage their members to make these types of threats, then he would have more standing. It isn't.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > his view of the entire community changes, and he aligns himself with the company That never happens. Self interest trumps notions of decency. (Particularly in the context of just a threat, regardless of how credible.) Is the timing convenient for management? Sure. Never let a crisis go to waste. Does that make their actions imprudent? Of course not. They’re a video game company. These aren’t stakes worth gambling against lives.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]