|
Dominic White posted:'Dissenting views' is certainly one way of describing it. A more accurate one would be 'flooding my twitter timeline with pictures of dead children and animals'. Even with the autoblocker the tags Gamergate has decided to flood have been tough to navigate. They've gotten wise to how it works and have accounts that aren't on it yet.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:Blocking someone on twitter is not an aggressive action. Lashing out because someone blocked you and creating new accounts to tell them to loving DIE kinda is. No one has the right to a platform in the replies to your tweets. It's hardly just that, meanwhile blocking is not at all as passive as it's more worthy ancestor- ignore. There is far more of a superficial punitive flavor to blocking, made to sound so much nicer while offering a bit of an ego boost. You're not just refusing to read their tweets further, are you? You're DENYING them access to your precious words. However ineffectually. It's silly at best to derive any particular joy from that, but I suspect some do indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
The Snark posted:It's hardly just that, meanwhile blocking is not at all as passive as it's more worthy ancestor- ignore. There is far more of a superficial punitive flavor to blocking, made to sound so much nicer while offering a bit of an ego boost. Quick ask him about his relationship with his mother.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The Snark posted:It's hardly just that, meanwhile blocking is not at all as passive as it's more worthy ancestor- ignore. There is far more of a superficial punitive flavor to blocking, made to sound so much nicer while offering a bit of an ego boost. And again, it's still the only way to prevent people from using your replies as a platform. If I tweet "Hope everyone's having a great day!" and someone replies "eat poo poo and die, shill", then anyone who clicks on my tweet will see that reply. They are using your reply as a platform to talk poo poo. The more followers you have, the larger the audience of that poo poo-talking platform is. But here's the thing--they don't have a divine right to be in your replies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
It's really amusing to see a discussion of how sea lioning isn't a thing no way no how being immediately followed by a bunch of people who just can't grasp why some people feel the need to block certain people from contacting them on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Publically declaring someone "unworthy to be listened to, or to be allowed to listen to me" because of who they follow on twitter is dumb. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
The Droid posted:Publically declaring someone "unworthy to be listened to, or to be allowed to listen to me" because of who they follow on twitter is dumb. HTH. You might feel differently if you had 10,000 howling trolls directing obscenities at you on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
lol at how seriously people take their twitter account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Again, it's still the only way to prevent people from using your replies as a platform. If I tweet "Hope everyone's having a great day!" and someone replies "eat poo poo and die, shill", then anyone who clicks on my tweet will see that reply. They are using your reply as a platform to talk poo poo. The more followers you have, the larger the audience of that poo poo-talking platform is. But here's the thing--they don't have a divine right to be in your replies. I'm not questioning the need for such a thing, just the implementation. I think they only thought it out insofar as how to make everything more appealing. That sort of ego boost seems still less likely if they were simply prevented from replying to tweets. And an anti-spam list is not inherently a problem when you have some better assurance it isn't being used for anything other than spam. A hard assurance to make if it is used to blanket-purge anyone who reads 'bad' things. The Snark fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
O__O posted:lol at how seriously people take their twitter account. You might feel differently if you were an indie journo who needs to connect with fans and peers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:There is nothing punitive about an automated spam filter. Sometimes people reply to Gamergaters who reply to my tweets. It's annoying to be notified about it, but each time I check it out, the GGer always has something insightful to say like "get cancer" or "shut up fag." I'm pretty content with my decision to use the autoblocker because I've yet to meet a GGer who was worth talking to. If anything the problem is that you still get notified when someone tags you in a tweet with someone you've blocked, but that's Twitter's problem not the autoblocker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
 BarbarianElephant posted:You might feel differently if you were an indie journo who needs to connect with fans and peers. If I was an indie games journo I'd probably slit my wrists because of a series of poor life choices leading up to that moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Indie games are not very good. Green light indie games anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Serf posted:Sometimes people reply to Gamergaters who reply to my tweets. It's annoying to be notified about it, but each time I check it out, the GGer always has something insightful to say like "get cancer" or "shut up fag." I'm pretty content with my decision to use the autoblocker because I've yet to meet a GGer who was worth talking to. You're thinking is too harsh on this matter. While it's generally considered that health and the good maintenance of it is an important aspect of it, and that cancer is a terrible thing, there are some people out there who say it may not be bad. Why do you not consider their viewpoint on this issue? Maybe you, good sir, are the bigoted one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I'm not questioning the need for such a thing, just the implementation. I think they only thought it out insofar as how to make everything more appealing. That sort of ego boost seems still less likely if they were simply prevented from replying to tweets. I'm not sure what "ego boost" you are referring you, as it applies to an automated blocklist. You never know that you are blocking someone new, you never see their tweets, or their replies to your tweets. I don't see how you can getting an ego boost from not-knowing that you are not-seeing tweets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
O__O posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd Kindly shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Chipp Zanuff posted:But Gamergate IS twitter drama! hmm i think we're on to something here
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I'm not sure what "ego boost" you are referring you, as it applies to an automated blocklist. You never know that you are blocking someone new, you never see their tweets, or their replies to your tweets. I don't see how you can getting an ego boost from not-knowing that you are not-seeing tweets. Because I was talking about what I feel is a design flaw in the way Twitter handles blocking individually. I know, I know, twitter is great so the possibility of a structural flaw especially in regard to how it affects human interaction is just unthinkable... But for the sake of argument. Meanwhile, you can do just such a thing easily when you are self-and-socially assured that those you don't hear are uniformly horrible monsters who are SO MAD you're blocking them. Reinforced nicely by the jerks Dominic references who will go out of their way to prove it is true... for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:You might feel differently if you had 10,000 howling trolls directing obscenities at you on Twitter. They've examined this, and once again .6% were trolls. They just made counter jokes making fun of Ethics in Games Journalism "jokes" which is hilarious. hmm, something about the article saying how those images were spread among her friends at school and not just twitter burns makes me think there is a difference between the two extremes here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd lol that has nothing to do with anything you idiot. In fact way to cheapen someone's death in the name of video game journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Because I was talking about what I feel is a design flaw in the way Twitter handles blocking individually. I know, I know, twitter is great so the possibility of a structural flaw especially in regard to how it affects human interaction is just unthinkable... But for the sake of argument. Twitter is poo poo, but there is nothing inherently weird about block. You've constructed a weird argument about ego boosts that says more about you than anything else. Blocking people from reading your tweets isn't about saying denying access to your precisious dumb words, but instead access to who you are retweeting and who you are replying to (so that you can't jump into those conversations as well, as harass anyone who talks to you). This is of course circumvented by the ability to easily create new accounts, but you are creating some weird narrative about why people hit the block button that only makes sense to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
What's concerning to me about GamerGate is less whether blockbots are okay or whether some poo poo some guy said on Twitter this one time is true, and more about its place in the overall trend of right-wing reactionary movements being birthed online. I mean, there have been pieces like this that hint at the more rah-rah-free-speech zones as being incubation chambers for these sorts of things. And there's certainly something to be said about the idea that "ironic" racism/homophobia/sexism/etc can lose its humorous edge in the context of a Burkian Parlor where those joining late see the racial/hateful/extremist commentary but lack the historical context that supposedly gives it a wink and nod. GG is, by all accounts, one of the first really successful products of those communities because it's capable of carrying that sort of ideology but without the baggage - it's not a neo-nazi group or a scary hacker collective hiding behind a mask, it's just a bunch of nerds who just want their video games taken more seriously! This has given it a surprising amount of staying power: it has the benefit of tapping into something people are irrationally passionate about (i.e., nerddom and games in particular), and it has the ability to derail and critique by way of a whole host of means. In this way its ranks can be endlessly refilled ("So-and-so SJW said something about YOUR favorite videogame!") and its distributed, amorphous, ever-changing nature protects it from pretty much any accusation ("How can you say that GamerGate did/thinks this when it's just a hashtag!?"). It's become apparent that it has a degree of staying power no one could have anticipated last August (and the realization that we've had almost a year of this poo poo is incredibly depressing). But what frustrates me (even a year on) is the group's claiming one thing while pushing a completely different ideology. I mean, just look a the latest posts in this thread: have we in the past 50 pages come close to discussing problems about games writing? Its funding model, its separation of content and advertising, the goals of journalism vs criticism and how "journalism" is an overly broad label applied to games writing, which pieces are particularly egregious and why... we're not talking about any of that, even as tangential issues. No part of this conversation has been centered around the supposed tenets of GG, because those tenets are illusory. Meanwhile the past several dozen pages have been focused on whether we should call certain Twitter users liars and whether it's "ethical" for people to protect themselves from abuse with blockbots if they feel they need it. Nevermind talking about game journalism ethics; we're not even talking about GamerGate itself, as an entity, at this point. We're debating GG's own list of pet peeves and issues - and I suspect that's the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:hmm, something about the article saying how those images were spread among her friends at school and not just twitter burns makes me think there is a difference between the two extremes here. Were this just twitter burns I'd agree with you. Unfortunately there's the very real Zoe Post that is a bit of a black mark on the entire front, even if you discount the torrents of abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Campster posted:But what frustrates me (even a year on) is the group's claiming one thing while pushing a completely different ideology. I mean, just look a the latest posts in this thread: have we in the past 50 pages come close to discussing problems about games writing? Its funding model, its separation of content and advertising, the goals of journalism vs criticism and how "journalism" is an overly broad label applied to games writing, which pieces are particularly egregious and why... we're not talking about any of that, even as tangential issues. No part of this conversation has been centered around the supposed tenets of GG, because those tenets are illusory. Hey, I tried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Were this just twitter burns I'd agree with you. Unfortunately there's the very real Zoe Post Zoe Post is far form unique in Call Out Culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
The purpose of GG is to obfuscate corruption by directing outrage at a malevolent outgroup. This is not a conspiracy, it is an emotional reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Campster posted:But what frustrates me (even a year on) is the group's claiming one thing while pushing a completely different ideology. I mean, just look a the latest posts in this thread: have we in the past 50 pages come close to discussing problems about games writing? Its funding model, its separation of content and advertising, the goals of journalism vs criticism and how "journalism" is an overly broad label applied to games writing, which pieces are particularly egregious and why... we're not talking about any of that, even as tangential issues. No part of this conversation has been centered around the supposed tenets of GG, because those tenets are illusory. . Multiple people have tried. It goes right back to talking about the personal lives of people involved instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Campster posted:and more about its place in the overall trend of right-wing reactionary movements being birthed online. It isn't and that's what's funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
I imagine focusing on ethics concerns is incredibly hard for the sincere pursuers of such when they get interrupted with accusation and insistence that they can't possibly care about ethics violations and are in fact just horrible monsters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Zoe Post is far form unique in Call Out Culture. You're right there's also Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. I guess the plight of having your personal information posted online and being stalked isn't unique to Zoe, barely even worthy of a mention with the other cases of the exact same thing happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I imagine focusing on ethics concerns is incredibly hard for the sincere pursuers of such when they get interrupted with accusation and insistence that they can't possibly care about ethics violations and are in fact just horrible monsters. Perhaps this is a good reason for those people to separate from the group of people harassing, doxxing, and slandering people offering progressive critique. So long as they willfully stand by people making up poo poo and abusing people, there grievances are going to be (rightfully) treated as smokescreen bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I imagine focusing on ethics concerns is incredibly hard for the sincere pursuers of such when they get interrupted with accusation and insistence that they can't possibly care about ethics violations and are in fact just horrible monsters. If they were sincere pursuers, they wouldn't associate with GamerGate. Kind of like how there aren't any sincere pursuers of racial equality with Stormfront or any sincere pursuers of the truth of Global Warming with Exxon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Multiple people have tried. It goes right back to talking about the personal lives of people involved instead. Actually it goes from discussing trends in journalism to dismissing it because "Gaming journalism is always bad" to "GG is losing the industry is changing to a result of it!" and when confronted with people disagree or posting evidence otherwise about whether the industry cares or using it dismiss game journalist it goes back to harassment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
If everyone thinks you're part of an extremist misogynist group that's using "ethics in journalism" as a cover for its purely hate-based non-ideals, the rational thing to do would be to distance yourself from it, not argue to the death that said group's targets "deserved it" by some strange measure that doesn't even have anything to do with what you're talking about. The more you try to defend it, the less credibility you have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Clarste posted:If everyone thinks you're part of an extremist misogynist group that's using "ethics in journalism" as a cover for its purely hate-based non-ideals, the rational thing to do would be to distance yourself from it, not argue to the death that said group's targets "deserved it" by some strange measure that doesn't even have anything to do with what you're talking about. The issue is that people who do distance themselves from it, or who made no prior mention of it, are lumped into one group or another by either side. Make fun of someone "in" AGG? loving goobergat troll, blocked, added to the list. Laugh at 4chan people getting mad over nothing? loving AGG SJW, why do you hate us?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:You're right there's also Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. I guess the plight of having your personal information posted online and being stalked isn't unique to Zoe, barely even worthy of a mention with the other cases of the exact same thing happening. Wu has demonstrably lied about this poo poo from starting a troll thread with her own dev account to lying about reporting "serious threats" to the police let alone treating MDE as a terrorist group
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Wu has demonstrably lied about this poo poo from starting a troll thread with her own dev account to lying about reporting "serious threats" to the police let alone treating MDE as a terrorist group So you've explained why Wu deserves it, what about Anita?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Wu has demonstrably lied about this poo poo from starting a troll thread with her own dev account to lying about reporting "serious threats" to the police let alone treating MDE as a terrorist group We've been over why the "troll thread false flag" thing is bullshit. Please prove these other accusations you're making. Also, it still doesn't justify her getting death threats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Clarste posted:If everyone thinks you're part of an extremist misogynist group Very few people actually believe this. Like SA maybe, but even then GBS leaned slightly into making fun of both groups. Reddit? Mostly pro GG. 4chan? Mostly pro GG or rather anti aGG. Regular people? Don't give a poo poo and think this entire thing is dumb. This is a pet issue only a fringe care about, and those fringe are "Twitter activists" and Social Media Junkies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Very few people actually believe this. Like SA maybe, but even then GBS leaned slightly into making fun of both groups. Reddit? Mostly pro GG. 4chan? Mostly pro GG or rather anti aGG. Regular people? Don't give a poo poo and think this entire thing is dumb. This is a pet issue only a fringe care about, and those fringe are "Twitter activists" and Social Media Junkies. The Southern Poverty Law Center believe it. They're kind of a big deal with stuff like this, maybe you've heard of them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:08
|
|