When you are asking for a game to be removed from the shelves because violence is morally offensive or asking for a game to have content removed because it "might "offend" trans people, that is censorship.

Asking people not to read a magazine because it is lying, distorting and pandering is not censorship. Although an argument could be made if the reason is to attack feminism.

Here's another example...
No one is accusing Anita of censorship by claiming people should avoid playing violent video games...
But as soon as she attempts to take the right to play those games from everyone else by asking stores not to carry a game or have countries ban and restrict them because violence is offensive, then she crosses the line into censorship.

Pillars of Eternity wasn't just "don't play the game it's trans unfriendly", it was remove the limerick or else...as people would order the game and then publicly ask for a refund or trash the game in the media, etc. Do everything in their power to force that content to be removed because that content is supposedly "offensive" to trans people.

It should be noted, that lying or outright lies have never been part of free speech or protected speech.

Testing. Can't seem to post. Strange bug. Wrote replies to arguments and all, but can't post them. Can't even edit them in.

some people have found violence in video games 'morally offensive', you have found 'lying, distorting and pandering' website articles 'morally offensive' too - what's the difference, other than one is someone else's reaction and the other is yours?

You argue just to fucking argue. Quit trolling...
You don't have a clue what you are talking about...
Just like when you were arguing about Witcher and you haven't read any of the books nor played any of the games.

There is no "right to lie" in free speech. It's called perjury, fraud, defamation. Yet you make up inane defenses. Get over yourself...

Some things can be objectively and factually wrong, while others fall strictly to opinion. But its pretty obvious you don't want an actual discussion, you are just here to try to make any of us look bad and in the process, you make yourself look like one of the stupidest people on these forums....

@htown
The bigger picture is the journalists. Sites themselves may or may not have been frequented. GG sent the emails because the journalists, not the sites were being corrupt and were engaging in collusion. They could've written gamers are dead articles, as is their right. But when they talk among themselves in a private group and plan the thing, it is collusion, and collusion of so many about one idea while those people hold positions of power WILL NOT BE GOOD for the industry. It will lead to advertising power being in the hands of a few alone, and that ultimately will end in the death of artistic freedom if people like Leigh Alexander were in charge. Its like with foreign policy. If the US and Russia behaved the same way Russia does now, there will be chaos. Same if Russia imitated the US. Powers must always be balanced, because two powers clashing can only be outdone by two powers cooperating. There MUST be independent adverting, journalism and critique and different people of different ideas heading them; because their job is to do their job and not online slacktivism.

Not receiving $$$ is a natural consequence of pissing off consumers in a free market. They could've had long term audience with gamers, but they sacrificed that audience by engaging in sensationalistic behavior to draw other people in. Ultimately, who ever visited the site does not matter if the site identified as a mainstream gaming site and has been for years. Anyone will be hard pressed to find differences between IGN US and Kotaku US, other than occasional dumbfuck articles on ''objectification''.
@Fever
Then I'd be censoring SEGA by not buying all the Rome 2 DLCs and censoring dark souls by playing offline. I get what you're trying to prove, but if the width of the approach is as broad as you claim, everything will be censorship.

I personally enjoyed just how badly the Deus Ex devs blew the twitter whiners out over the term "mechanical apartheid," and just how quickly a majority of them backpedaled as soon as they found out he was French Canadian and black. In some cases, it was a complete 180, with some turning around and voicing support for the product. Kinda two faced, y'all. Kinda two faced.

if you think your personal attacks have any affect other than making you look like a kid bully spazzing out you are sadly mistaken, although I don't want you to stop, it's funny to watch

Anyways what were we talking about?

We'd gone riiiight back to the 'Gamers are Dead' articles hadn't we? Those were fairly vitriolic opinion pieces that savaged the hand that feeds the gaming press but they were still that weren't they? 'Opinion pieces' what actual lies are you suggesting were included or where you talking about something else?

this is one of the weirdest comments I've read in a while. i guess we should just agree to disagree. all the best.

Um...I'm pretty sure everyone here sees you as the troll you are. You keep bringing up the same bad points over and over again. No, it makes you out to be a jerk.

No, its not just "Gamers are Dead", it's everything they do, like fail to disclose their relationships with the developers and their bad reviews. I don't know, maybe read the rest of this thread...oh wait, you've been posting through all of it...how the heck did you miss that? Its how they lied factually about the Witcher 3, its claiming things like more women are killed than men. It's all the lies and distortions.

You act like you haven't read any of this thread at all. Here we go again, having to rehash the same things that have been mentioned for months because Fever the Fucking Troll, wants to pretend to be wearing blinders again. Seriously, you need to Fuck Off.

Okay you know what pisses me off about the witcher 3 debacle etc? American SJW treat all white people as one culture, completely oblivious to the world. Because while culture in the USA may be fairly general it must be everywhere right? WRONG. In Europe, nearly every country has it's own culture history, mythology. Shit Belgium is a tiny ass country and we have local myths, even individual cities have their own myths.

Saying all European countries share one culture is ridiculous.

Or better yet, my fellow Americans telling you Europeans how culturally diverse your countries were in the 13th century when most Americans cannot name most of the countries on a map...

You're just being confusing on purpose now, OK you didn't reply but you seemed to be talking to me about what I said in post 4033
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_gamergate_news_thread/post4033
which was in reply to talk about 'Gamers are Dead'
I was alluding to your all encompassing definition of censorship that include boycotts

BUT I was effectively suggesting a boycott in response to 'Gamers are Dead' articles, you can open that up to talking about boycotting sites because of other things you don't like too, sure, but I hadn't realised we'd gone there and I wasn't prepared for it, hence my confusion

So then, boycotting Polygon over Mr Gie's reviews if you feel that they are contain lies may be different to boycotting sites over 'Gamers are dead' articles because you strongly disagree with those opinions and find them personally offensive, then, is that the distinction we're drawing?

Presumably, they are receiving that $7,700 a month. But I do know that some Patreon account holders have claimed in the past that those numbers are somewhat exaggerated as those are promises to pay. The implication was they actually receive somewhat to significantly less after non-payments are taken into account.
Let's start with point one, the purpose of the boycott. That they change their editorial and journalistic practices. That they tell the truth and follow the guidelines expected of journalists. Note, that no specific content is being asked to be removed; the magazines are not being asked to be shut down. How are you claiming this falls under "censorship"?

Compare this to an art exhibit which had a piece of art removed because a public pressure group deemed it offensive. Or a petition to get GTA V removed from stores. Or a media campaign/boycott over a limerick which won't stop until that limerick is removed...

Censorship isn't about fewer people reading it, its about removing access to that material on the behalf of others. If I were in Australia, I now cannot walk into a Target and buy GTA V on the grounds it is violently offensive toward women. I cannot play Pillars of Eternity and view that limerick because others found it offensive.

But even with this "boycott" successful, I would be able to go to Polygon's website and read the articles. Furthermore, I would find them to be more objectively accurate. There is no censorship here.

And funny how you try to call me "confusing" when you were the one who "cherry-picked" defense of the opinions and ignored all the factual inaccuracies which lead to the boycotts.

Sure. Not that I find your comment any less strange though :D Its mutual. You seem to think some kind new epoch is coming where ''gamers'' are driven out by someone and and an idealistic ''diversity'' rules over all.

And guys, since we've slipped back into civil discussion, lets not finger the rep buttons too much yes?