Maybe that question has already been answered but:
Why is Zoe Quinn using a Cool Negg (from neopets) as her twitter avatar?

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't discriminating customers be illegal? Because that's what he wants to do, deny a service to customers for an arbitrary reason. Anyway, the whole thing is just a pointless hissy fit; how many GGers are actually interested in buying a game that's not fun? He's just creating a ton of extra work to deny people a product who are not interested. That's a like a butcher keeping a list of local vegetarians to stop them from buying his meant.

Nope, that'd be capitalism. The game was removed from a particular storefront (if I'm understanding this correctly), which affected everyone in the market equally. Discrimination would hypothetically be present if he only blocked certain people from buying it from that particular storefront while allowing others to buy it from there.

That's what I mean, he wanted to go through his purchasers and decide "this one gets a Steam key and that one doesn't" based on who was in favour of GG. He removed it completely from Desura because they did not allow for consumer discrimination, so now no one is getting anything.

In that case, then it's only illegal discrimination under very limited circumstances. Under the Civil Rights Act, you can't discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or religion (that's on a Federal level, though; states can have similar statutes that protect more categories of people). For any group not in that list, the court has to engage in analysis to determine if the discrimination is purely arbitrary or if there is some legitimate business purpose to doing so. All kind of moot since it seems like no discrimination actually came to fruition. At least, that's my take on the very limited data that I have, and there is always room for error in law, especially without engaging in more extensive research.

That's a fairly basic overview, though; I can't dig too much into the weeds on this right now due to real life constraints.

It's discrimination of a political nature, which I do believe would also be covered under that, and while you could have someone making an argument about hate groups, that's the point where you need hard facts instead of just opinions, because rule of law is not done based on someone's feelings. Hard facts however, will probably show a different tale and it's not something that most people who are so militant against Gamergate actually seem to want.

What is everyone so outraged about it? This is nowhere even close to average hentai/doujin level.

Why is this thread still going?

Because lots of games journalists, and yes they do call themselves that, would rather let others be their shields and scare people away from gaming then actually do the right thing and fix their shit.

because both pro and contra Gamergate sides still exist

I think its pretty well known (has been for years) review sites in general *work together* (cough!) with devs/publishers. This is nothing new. Move along :D

Because the ride never ends.

I actually know of one certain case where negative reviews were paid for, that when the Obsidian game Alpha Protocol came out if you noticed it or can recall it, dozens of reviews began to bash it right away, usually even when one couldn't even install and began the game in that time.

You hear a lot of the events when reviews are bought to be great and praising litanies are sung about certain games, but this is the one case I ever noticed an EXTREME case of negative shitstorming. Sure, AP had its problems, but was still one of the most interesting games at the time of its release and rivaled Mass Effect 1-2 (imo) except the almost 100% lack of costumization, but the absurd amount of bashing was unexpected.

But why isn't that worth fixing though? It's a 100 billion dollar industry, maybe it's time to fix our shit, most of us are getting older, we're not kids anymore with budgets that aren't dominated by responsibilities.

How do you fix something which is based on opinion's (and subject to influence by external factors or personal biases? )