That sounds very very deluded. You're overestimating the frequency and damage of online harassment. I'll try to use the Lazarus plugin BTW, thanks for that.

I read up the last parts of OWen's article. She describes her project in better detail. She says all she's gonna have on it will be publicly available information that the people themselves post. She also says she ran this through lawyers who assured the legality of what she's doing.

That is not the only evidence she cites. She cites a lot of stuff. One very important one being that she received a harassment email from a private email she shared with ZQ. Also that Randi Harper claimed responsibility for the shutting down of her kickstarter. Those two are fairly big pieces. Other than that, she cites various other stuff, like how both ZQ and Randi have factually provable history of harassment, especially Randi.

If her stuff was all legal, then Owens had a right to go forward with it, and she shouldn't have been shut down. Either way, I'm happy she isn't blaming this on GG.

More gold : http://imgur.com/gallery/HKGmx

Hilarious. I love how they start out typical brain washing nonsense and ends in a total epic insult-fest. *Hat tipped*

A little note; I'm not sure if it's a good habit to cite a board member's reputation value as something credible like you're doing here. When this board was set up, the admins probably enabled the post rating system in order to easily distinguish posters who had valuable technical advice to offer to people who ran into trouble getting their games running, or to easily distinguish posters who had the bad habit of cluttering technical threads with off-topic oneliners. Eventually, the former would have a high reputation while the latter's reputation value would end up in the negatives.

There are two problems with this system.

- Not every board member has the habit of rating posts. Lots of folks read threads, but while they appreciate helpful replies they don't really go out of their way to upvote them. Likewise, many folks most likely won't bother downvoting a post unless they really feel it violates a rule or two. Hence, a member's reputation may be skewed by the fact that only a select part of the board members rates posts.

- It's easy for a board member to get a high reputation by having a few buddies upvote each post they make. It's also easy for a board member to get a low reputation just because they had an argument with a person who proceeded to childishly downvote every post they made just to deliver a hit to said member's reputation value. (I say it's childish because this is probably not the purpose of the downvote option the board admins had in mind when they enabled it) One thing that's kinda noticable about this thread is that posts frequently get downvoted not so much because they violate forum rules but because these posts disagree with the consensus held by the 20 to 30 or so regulars that keep the thread running. Seeing that 20 to 30 people isn't really a large number compared to the sheer member count on these boards, I'd take official rep values with a big grain of salt. It might just mean someone simply often butts heads with folks who have an itchy rate-button-trigger-finger.

You're the only one at the time who actually voices racism ad hominem.
No one challenges the abuse from you and you're getting upvoted.

First downvoting a person and then assessing her credibility by looking at the downvote value, that's the same circular reasoning that I find in the SJW enemy concept. Actively partaking in the definition and identification of the concept is taking place at the same time. Yes, that's exactly what my schools have taught me to be darn bad.

I must assume you know nothing about Zoe Quinn, you have no idea what she's been doing the last year and you don't intend to change that any time soon. What kind of second hand source are we talking about here, the RalphRetort? But if for some reason you feel the sudden urge to get informed one of these days, here's a place to start. As to your knowledge concerning call-out culture, public shaming, outing and just generally violating people's privacy as a means of making any situation better in any way: That really, really needs work. :(

The fight against harassment is not the same, and in many cases the exact opposite of revenge against harassers. You may not need to understand that. Candace Owens definitely has to.

Does e.g. suicide, depression, social isolation, diverse anxiety states etc. sound like the kind of damage that you find overestimated? Do you e.g. find the percentages from the renowned Pew Research Center to be exaggerated?

I don't think you did understand that correctly (which absolutely may owe to the way Owens phrased it). The database can supposedly only be searched by RL names, but will then tie publicly available information of that real life name (employer, etc.) to instances of harassment (proven by screenshots) of the previously anonymous online names. The data itself, including the screenshots, is supposedly supplied by private, anonymous sources, like e.g. friends, family members or co-workers of the targeted alleged harasser.

A potential employer can look up the name of an applicant, find reported instances of harassment that may or may not be true, find screenshots that may or may not be doctored, find a heap of general accusations that may or may not match the information in the screenshots (like on deepfreeze), then decide to not hire the person in question. And unless the person doesn't look up her own name on socialautopsy.com, she will never know why she doesn't get any jobs. And when she finally finds out, it's time for her to get absolutely paranoid, because she will not know who among her associates attempted to and possibly succeeded in ruining her life.

Edward Snowden should tweet about this sick crap.


She is, after all, living in a country the meagre privacy concerns of which remain the laughing stock of the entire world, so sure, it may be legal there. I'm no legal expert, and particularly not on US law. But mind you, abuse is not automatically illegal, and Social Autopsy still is explicitly meant as counter-abuse.

The latter isn't new, that blog post has been around since Friday IIRC. And Kickstarter is known for needing a major nudge or two if a project very explicitly violates their terms of service. As to the first info, that isn't entirely correct. It wasn't a private email account as such, it was a personal work account. One that, as Jesse Singal from nymag.com tells us, isn't actually that difficult to figure out. :|

If it e.g. turns out to be cowens@degree180.com ("private" as opposed to the public contact@degree180.com address), which is a definitive possiblility, we will have to agree that this is officially Candace Owens' first time on the internet. :|

Under US law, she may have had a right to make that website, but she has never had any right to collect funds on Kickstarter: I'm not sure in what way the concept could be more invasive of another person's privacy, and I absolutely consider it a tool for harassment.

Oh I knew about what Crash Override is supposed to be but I have yet to see any evidence that it's actually anything more than names from the movie "Hackers"

No my "downvoted" (people is downvoted for a reason, not for a "circular" Post-modern constructivism SJW construct idea) you been the first one doing ad-hominems in the most cheap and stupid Godwin Law when you "suggested" in the most cheap sophism ever, that use SJW as a concept was NAZI. Don't make me lose the time quoting you pages ago, as we all know which kind of Goebbles fan you are playing the "OH GG people have LISTS of SJWs, this is so NAZI" meanwhile you pretend to don't know what Twitter did with their "filtering lists".

Lists made my a big company and communication platform, vs. lists made my people without any power about others, beyond list them on the internet. Even if I condemn both things, but you tried to say the first one "was not bad" Do you really consider how much shit is in your brain if you cannot even see the different scale of these both things? Do you really think you are fighting for the rights of people? Haha, seriously... do you consider yourself a "good" person just calling nazis to others for use some words, using cheap sophism, constant euphemisms, ignoring good arguments, and now trying to play the victim?

I bet if you look carefully in the mirror you probably can see that you are wrong.

Unpopular opinion incoming.

As a former Gamergate supporter, I feel that about half of GG supporters are phonies and people looking to cash in on it. Many others are there for shits and giggles and others are trolls or hardliners. Yes, there are a few good people supporting it but barely any at this point. I've been following it since October 2014 and am on the infamous GGAutoblocker despite not supporting it any longer. I'm barely sympathetic to it as of now. Most people dropped out and those you considered friends just mute and or unfollow you on Twitter, never a second thought. There's no community, no structure and almost nothing worthwhile anymore. I still agree with its anti-censorship so long as it's not taken to extreme lengths (see Dragonspear for overreactions) but it's become nothing but a bunch of extremists and other people who really don't care anymore. I thought I made some friends during this kerfluffle. I was wrong. I was wrong about what it stood for too. Sad to see it waste itself away like it has and become the very thing people accuse it of.

It is sad to see such a terrible turn of events was your fate. However, it is not the same experience for me. In fact, my anti SJW stance costed me one or two friends, but it also gave me new friends and made other bonds stronger. Maybe you should reconsider what kind of people you interacted with.

..aaactually, GG 'was' done at a point. We set out to do what we wanted. Goal had been achieved. We went into a watchdog mode but everyone is still wanting to use GG as their boogieman so it keeps bring brought up. More people find out about GG after the fact and think jumping in and claiming a side of something means they're a part of something when they've arrived after the heavy lifting was over.

So at this point in time, most things to do are to still call out bad journalism and practices as well as take time to start rebuilding things from the ground up.

Choose what you think needs the attention like boosting newer/better media outlets. Offer to help those outlets. Check out Solution 6 Months.. all a group of people learning to make games if just for themselves and maybe put some more game companies out there to fill the gaps for types of games that are asked many times over for and rarely get.

Shit like that, ya know? Also, GG is a hashtag. You can do everything you've been doing in GG.. and not worry about bothering with hashtags. If you're for a kind of thing happening, you work for it.

Oh noes. Being blocked by stupid people on Twitter. How horrible.



I wouldn't even bother worrying about something like that. Strange thing about me is... I've been using the hashtag and still not on any of the block lists. I know a few people had to manually add me for whatever reason but that doesn't hurt my feelings any. They're people that don't want to talk. They just want to keep talking and not let anyone voice their opinion.

No, the same people are actually doing work and gone on to other things similar to what we've been using the hashtag for for a couple years. Like all other things, something is gonna get dirty with idiots just being idiots.

Me, I've moved on from even bothering with hashtags. Some people I still follow and share what they find and share but I don't use Twitter as a platform for discussion. Especially now since we have other outlets that allow these discussions. Everything moved to Twitter in the first place because journo sites were deleting comments and not allowing discussions on things that didn't make them look good.

We have other outlets now. Trash Twitter completely if you must.

Well for me would be "worse" as I lost GG friends, and SJW friends, I should write friends into "brackets", as some of my best REAL friends could be considered SJW and other GGs and they are still there, I only lost people I don´t know for real, so I do not care. In the process of criticizing both sides at least I found people that has LOGIC and REASON instead of stupid fanaticism or victimism, they avoid to polarize ideas. So I am Glad for that.

You might not be on the blocklist if you're a "newer" supporter. I came in around October 2014 when it was starting out. A lot of people I know who came to support it a year ago or so are still not on the blocklist. I guess Randi Harper kind of let it go after awhile and it's just not active much.

What people did with Rapp and her husband is a fucking shame, period. She never said she supported pedophilia, she was trying to explain a cultural pop phenomena in Japan, and the same ones that probably consume Hentai, with hunted her, plain amazing... about her alleged sexual life, is her fucking sexual life, the same for her husband, I agree that maybe Nintendo took the right decision to fire them, because is a private company with the right to decide who represent them, and has a huge children target. But still, what people did with this couple is just a shame.