Firstly I think it is commendable that you give Gamergate supporters ANY voice. Why is it commendable?
Because we are the ONLY organisation that does not get to self-define. A year of having others in the media (tradition and social) tell us who we are. Not being able to have a voice. But you have seen that yourself. The narrative promoted is “They should not be allowed to speak”. When you cancelled, who did everyone blame on the harassment you got on? In recent times we have had 2 speaking engagements. One was the Battle of Ideas and the other the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) Airplay. The latter was shut down by several bomb threats. The other side live off public speaking engagements. Whether it is Anita, Randi Harper or Brianna Wu….the only one time that they cancelled was in Utah University over a year ago to a threat police confirmed to Anita was not credible (she cancelled any way because she did not like their gun policy there and then lied and said she cancelled because of Gamergate).
But it is not JUST that they don’t allow us a voice. All harassment is BECAUSE of us, according to the talking heads in the media. Again you have seen that. Ask them (even as a neutral person) how they could possibly gauge such a thing and quantify that, and what do you get? You get told that you are sympathising with gamergate supporters and probably a lot of vitriol. Gamergate does not have a platform on online harassment and nor should we. Why? Because it is the same reason that you do not have a company platform on Spina Bifida or home invasions. We do not encourage any of these actions and we certain are not a party to them. We do get blamed though for all manner of threats and harassment and with no evidence or far less proof.
A terrible turn in discussions as you will no doubt find is that the word “harassment” is one that was may mean different things for different people. It can be a weaselly word give much potential to effective switch and bait techniques. If someone say that they are harassed online, you, like me, probably have an idea what that may mean. A death threat or a rape threat, or being followed around by someone. Maybe your details leaked online. This is pretty cut and dried in my view. Anyone receiving this ought to call it harassment (and in the case of death and rape threats, ought to go to authorities). Okay what if you made a terrible faux pas, a bad joke in poor taste, a casual insult to a group of people and MANY of the people who each individually saw that comment, expressed their anger at you. Is that harassment? What if you have an online spat with someone and they call you names? Is that harassment? What if you lie collectively about a group and a number of that group either call you names or tell you that you are wrong or otherwise express their anger at you? Be very careful when you listen to these people express their harassment what we are ACTUALLY talking about, the context to which it is born and the evidence that the harassment is what they say it is?
Why is THIS important? Because sometimes people actually are dishonest or misrepresent said harassment. Brianna Wu was struggling to get support for her game on Steam. She wrote a troll post to harass herself (to then frame that she was getting harassment). Unfortunately she forgot she was still logged into her account and a quick deletion followed when she realised that she had done this
Many of the big names on the other side are harassers in their own right. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/29/harping-on-the-hypocrisy-and-lies-of-twitters-most-notorious-anti-abuse-activist-randi-harper-part-1/
What Gamergate supporters have had to endure is beyond the pale.
You have no doubt seen many media outlets covering this? No? When we had bomb threats against us in Washington DC meet up and were evacuated I think 2 places did write ups on us which was about the same amount when the block was evacuated in Miami for the SPJAirplay event….and then there was another bomb threat in Australia in Melbourne. But WHY two articles only? Why did those articles not blame the other side? Why did 35 articles get written on your cancellation and all blame Gamergate Supporters?
This is the narrative you are in the thick of. It is imbalanced and unfair and biased against the Gamergate supporters. Why would people frame this so terribly badly against Gamergate supporters?
1) How many Straight white cisgendered male diversity Officers are there?
2) How many Conservative Gender Studies lecturers?
3) How many Atheist US senators?
These unrelated questions are actually related. In the case of 1) it is showing that this position is not made for a particular type of person. That person will not present a certain way for that job. 2) No reason there can’t except…Feminism seems to usually not be associated with values that are conservative. The traditional values are not Liberal. Therefore Liberal or more often “Progressive” values are pushed into academic discourse NOT conservative values. In the case of 3) despite the separation of church and state, America is largely Christian and so the people that will be considered will be Christian too.
In gaming we see what happens when a Progressive cohort tries to have gaming informed by their “Progressive” outlook and to view the entirety of the gaming industry and gaming hobby and all gaming spaces viewed through that filter or lens and many of us saying “NO”.
We do not need to be shamed or the industry meet new standards or be critical of our community or anything of the sort. We are not harassing our detractors when we express this.
So given all of this, a BIG concern is our panel you have crapped over. Who is representing Gamergate supporters and OUR narrative? Lynne Walsh is Neutral, you got rid of Nick, and so that leaves Mercedes Carrera who I greatly admire. She is a brilliant spokesperson.
Now lets look at who will support the other narrative that I outlined above and for reasons I outlined above
Monika Bickert (Head of Product Policy, Facebook)
Soraya Chemaly (Writer/Director, WMC Speech Project)
Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D-Massachusetts)
Wendy Davis (Women’s Rights Advocate; former TX State Senator)
Mark DeLoura (VP Technology, formerly with Sony, Nintendo, Google, and White House OSTP)
Mary Anne Franks (Law Professor, University of Miami School of Law and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative)
Jonathan Greenblatt (CEO and National Director, Anti-Defamation League)
Umair Haque (umairhaque.com)
Sarah Jeong (Contributing Editor, Vice Motherboard)
Emma J. Llansó (Director, Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy & Technology)
Emily May (Co-founder and Executive Director, Hollaback!)
Kelly McBride (Vice President of Academic Programs, The Poynter Institute)
Shireen Mitchell (Founder, Digital Sisters and Stop Online Violence Against Women)
Nika Nour (Director, Communications and Creative Strategies, Internet Association)
Meredith L. Patterson (Security Researcher)
Joseph Reagle (Northeastern University and Author, “Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web”)
Jeffrey Rosen (President & CEO, National Constitution Center)
Lee Rowland (Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project)
Ari Ezra Waldman (Associate Professor of Law, New York Law School)
Brianna Wu (Head of Development, Giant Spacekat)
Okay so I make 22 who will spin Gamergate supporters as terrible and 2 neutrals and 1 pro-gamergate supporter who will support our voice.
Why is it unbalanced 22 voices to 1? Do you believe this is fair. I mean if you want to trash us, fine, it is nothing we have not experienced in over 12 months but why?