Interesting thoughts Gilozard. I don't agree with much, and I can't say I'm very surprised...
Some people have always been willing to talk about cronyism - no matter who does it. Others have always made those critiques very partial - conditional on involvement of the big game publishers and larger commercial agendas, but turning a blind eye to cronyism nearer indies / narrative driven games, and specific ideological agendas.
Nothing surprising - indie cred and mission journalism both overlap significantly with "stick it to the man" and anti-capitalist activism. That anyone would feel defensive about acknowledging that is to me ridiculous given all the talk of sincerety as the ethical standard to replace objectivity. But I digress...
I don't particularly remember nerd rage being the reason for the mass deletion of threads before GG even had that name. I'm sure it was there from the start to some degree, but it was fueled by not even allowing anyone to discuss the taboo topics. Rage certainly didn't cause anyone to sleep with anyone else you know?
Now, distrust was in there for sure, with lots of confirmation bias on both sides. But the reflexive dismissal that distrust had any validity - in the typical "nothing to see here" coverup model - only served to fuel the paranoia of those so inclined. Me I saw it as just another sign of the ethical immaturity of most of those in positions of relative power in gaming media, but maybe you will call it just sloppy moderation.
As an aside, GOG is exceptional (for good and bad) in that it was one of the very few places where outright deletion and dismissal was not reflexively performed, and if you look at the relevant threads objectively you will see the rage, insults and abuse was not exclusive to one side of the discussion - far from it. At least you do acknowledge both sides are trollish - not a big step from there to realize also abusive. Thanks for that step.
Finally, as for the distinction between sloppiness and lack of ethics, you might have to elaborate. I see both as mostly unintentional lacks of professionalism in this context (though really I will not put my hands on the fire for anyone else's motives, this shit is too polarized now) - still in theory neither is equivalent to existence of antethical motives. And they can certainly overlap rather than be wholly distinct.
I think the more relevant point is that this is again your othering distrust. If you see / saw a criticism about lack of ethics as an implicit accusation of malice - that is another example of how from the beginning there was a certain oversensitive defensiveness contributing to the overreaction and demonization. One could almost say that was RAAAGE (of the
How dare you question/refuse me! privilege variety) and extremely unhelpful. Whether anyone enraged identifies as nerd, gamer, or whatever - it hardly matters IMO.
But of course, the labels matter to many. Ultimately this does go back to the rejection of objectivity all around - not unique to journalism. If you reject judging others on the basis of their observable factual behavior, you are only left with their identifying labels. The group abides, the individual is subsumed. Guilt by association becoming the norm. To me, that's kind of counterproductive if the goal is to look at individuals as diverse units of human value. One could almost say the rejection of objectivity is antethical with acknowleging the value of diversity - if one looks at the consequences rather than the intent that is.
Tragic. The constant pursuit of freedom via libertinism and lack of challenges or boundaries to one's will rather than freedom as libertarian agency limited by respect for others as equals.
