> Not to mention the complete lack of journalistic ethics on Kotaku. They frequently post articles about games they have financial or personal ties to, without

> Not to mention the complete lack of journalistic ethics on Kotaku. They frequently post articles about games they have financial or personal ties to, without disclosure. Um, ahem, hackers, downvoters, internetizens, lend me your ears. Or eyes, fuck it. Let's assume for a second that GamerGate is awful. Some nontrivial proportion of the "movement" are bigoted trolls who threaten people over the internet, violate their privacy, and drag down the tenor of discourse on messageboards they inhabit. But consider that just maybe Kotaku actually has a pretty bad policy about conflicts of interest. How is someone supposed to post about this? 'Zikes didn't mention GamerGate. He didn't claim to support the movement or try to whitewash people's actions. All he did was to complain about article quality on a website which, for the record, I haven't read in months and have no opinion of (the only videogame I still play is Super Smash Brothers). Are we so tribal that simply expressing a view associated with a dishonorable group of people leads to some downvote-heavy flamewar about them? As I clicked "reply", 'Zikes's comment was black. When the textbox had loaded, he was downvoted into the grey. Calm down, people.