Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Social Networks The Internet Games Your Rights Online

Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment 716

squiggleslash writes Brianna Wu, a game studio owner in Boston, found herself the target of numerous anonymous death threats last month, apparently the escalation of a campaign that started when she spoke up for women in gaming, and that intensified during the GamerGate train wreck. Rather than hide, she's offering an $11,000+ cash reward for anyone who helps put her attacker in jail, and she's reporting — albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes — that it's already having an effect. Wu is also setting up a legal fund to go after those promoting more extreme libels against her and others, with screenshots of a forged tweet purporting to be written by her still circulating around the Internet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment

Comments Filter:
  • Two thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:09PM (#48328343) Homepage Journal
    1. Why do we seriously need threats prison time to get people to knock off threating to rape and murder people, or threats of lawsuits to have people not forge the kind of libelous "evidence" that drives such hatred in the first place?"
    2. What happens to those without the resources? I'm guessing most of those who suffer this kind of extreme harassment aren't rich enough to own game studios.
    • Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:22PM (#48328463)

      We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway. The people in an uproar over this have this idea in their heads that there are an army of tech savvy Rush Limbaughs out their attacking them. And that's certainly not what's going on. The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree. The idea that you could sit in a chat room filled with teenage boys that can speak in complete anonymity and not get made fun of is a laughable. "The Internet" is not a PBS debate forum, it's a dirty coed locker room in highschool and there's no teacher.

      The fact that anyone takes this seriously shows just how naive they really are. Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar. That's like putting a button in the middle of the mall that if you push it, it calls a swat team. Of course it's going to get pressed over and over and over again. Stop sending the swat team, the kids will stop pressing it.

      • Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Krojack ( 575051 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:33PM (#48328579)

        Either way any online death threat should be investigated. In the end the person (if old enough) should be publicly called out and shamed. If underage their parents would then be notified and HOPE they deal with it. Also I wouldn't object to the parents being send part of the investigation bill. They can put their child to work washing dishes and mowing the lawn till they are 18 to pay for it.

        If it's found to be credible then it's time to prosecute.

        • If every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds. How about every death threat made in a bar while we're at it?

          • Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @05:36PM (#48329313) Homepage

            I don't think you realise this but it illegal to threaten to kill someone. So yes, every death threat issued in a bar that is reported and where there is suitable evidence should be prosecuted and where convicted rehabilitative action taken as well as compulsary remediation by the perpetrator to the victim. Punitive punishment is absolutely pointless and that is a lesson that needs to be taught to the perpetrators, effective rehabilitation in conjunction with remediation is the only sound solution.

            Rewards are not really that effective and public action is far more suitable. So don't just phone in a report it to the local police. Collect all the evidence, package it and then go with that evidence to all the applicable authorities keeping in mind threat across state boundaries bring in Federal authorities. So local, state and federal police as well as the communications authority. Forming a political action group to seek greater policing activity in the pursuit of those issuing online death threats, in an actual threatening manner.

      • Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:47PM (#48328707)

        We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway

        You are forgetting that in the USA, it is not uncommon to sentence kids to jail for life.

        http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/1... [hrw.org]

        There are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a new joint report published today.

        While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences.

        also read, http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... [thedailybeast.com]

        Does an 11-Year-Old Deserve Life in Prison?
        Eleven-year-old Jordan Brown is accused of killing his father's pregnant fiancé with a hunting rifle. Does that means he belongs in an adult prison with rapists, murderers, and hardened criminals?

        So 13 year old making death threats? Hey, they could spend many many years behind bars for that and anything related.

      • by geekoid ( 135745 )

        " are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway"
        sadly, it starting to look like that are adults doing this.
        That said, a court could harder them not to use the internet for a year.

      • Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo&world3,net> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @05:37PM (#48329329) Homepage Journal

        The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree.

        I went one better and googled it: http://www.statista.com/statis... [statista.com]

        So, not really then.

        The trolls seems to vary in age but most are adults. Just head over to YouTube and watch a few of their videos.

        Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar.

        That fact that it is only a minority going as far as death and rape threats suggests that such behaviour is extreme and unacceptable to most people, even with the shield of anonymity. Anyway, it goes beyond just typing stuff on the internet. When people post threats along with your home address you have little choice but to take it seriously and secure yourself.

        This isn't about children screaming at each other, it's about people making credible threats that they have the means to carry out against. They must have spent time researching the crime to get her home address, it's not just an idle threat.

  • Sweet! (Score:2, Funny)

    by gatkinso ( 15975 )

    I could use $11,000.

    Too bad I have no clue who was sending those threats.

  • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:12PM (#48328373)

    Dear Internet,
              We, the women of the Internet, hereby demand to be treated with respect and dignity. We refuse to be talked down to, insulted, or otherwise degraded while on-line. Furthermore we demand that you finally acknowledge that we do in fact understand technology and the internet as well as any...

    Why are you laughing?!?! STOP LAUGHING! That's it, I'm suing someone! Give me your name... got it... Seemore... Butts... Got it, We'll be seeing you in court... Mr.... hey!!! Get back here.

    • Re:Getting trolled (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:16PM (#48328411)

      Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.

      She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.

      • At the same time everyone gets death threats online. Even if we are being strict with what we consider a serious death threat, I have gotten at least one that I can think of. And I am not even a minor internet celebrity/reporter. Every singe celebrity and reporter gets then all the time, to mention the or try and bring up charges is a rather unique thing to do. But personally, that is what really has to happen around this Gamergame scene; because that is the major disagreement between the two sides. One sid
      • Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.

        The legality of death threats is actually not a cut-and-dried issue. This article [splcenter.org] discusses various U.S. court cases related to death threats, and what criteria the courts use to determine whether they are protected free speech or not.

        I suspect that a death threat accompanied by "doxxing" would be considered more serious than an isola

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        There is a trade-off between curbing illegal behavior and freedom. Suppressing all undesirable actions on the Internet would require something very close to fascist methods, which makes the "cure" far, far worse than the problem. And yes, unethical and illegal are two very different, and unrelated things, despite the fact that most people do not understand that.

    • Re:Getting trolled (Score:5, Insightful)

      by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:22PM (#48328461) Homepage Journal

      If this were about people laughing at women, generally being sexist, or even calling them bad names, you'd have a point.

      This is about extreme harassment - death threats, attempts to fake evidence to get other mobs involved, etc. Not laughing at people. Not calling them names. Not disagreeing with them.

      • This broad umbrella category of defense which could be called "all trolling is the same, and thus is no big deal" always reads to me as reflecting extremely poorly on the people who make it.

        It's kind of a trivial application of empathy to ask "How would this feel if it were me, instead?" And the conjunct of some strangers openly publishing your home address and other strangers threatening your life never seems harmless under that assessment.

      • Re:Getting trolled (Score:4, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:39PM (#48328623) Homepage Journal

        This is about extreme harassment - death threats, attempts to fake evidence to get other mobs involved, etc. Not laughing at people. Not calling them names. Not disagreeing with them.

        Does a death threat on the internet automatically become more credible because you're female? I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's the case, that more internet death threats are followed up against women than against men. But is it the case?

      • Re:Getting trolled (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Kielistic ( 1273232 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:41PM (#48328643)

        I recommend you read through this woman's tweets... She is extremely abrasive, histrionic and goes out of her way to get attention. On Slashdot she would be modded troll or flamebait constantly. She would consider that targeted harassment. She uses a few instances of actual threats plus a lot of people calling her an idiot for saying moronic things to say she gets nonstop threats. I am not a twitter person; I went to it solely to research this whole hoopla and neither her nor any of her sycophants would be able to handle Slashdot discourse.

        She says these threats are targeting her for this or that reason (outspoken woman blah blah) but it is because she has made a spectacle out of herself. This has been brought up time and again but is labeled as "victim blaming". She wants to make it about "being a woman on the Internet" (that gets media attention) but anyone well versed in the ways of the Internet try to tell her it's just about being an idiot on the Internet. Unfortunately anybody that makes a spectacle out of themselves will attract people sending death threats. Those people are doing it for attention too so they will latch on to whoever will make it the loudest. No amount of stroking her ego will change that fact.

        • Re:Getting trolled (Score:5, Insightful)

          by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:57PM (#48328813) Homepage Journal

          Yes, I have started following her on Twitter. She is abrasive. No, I wouldn't agree though that she's "histrionic" or "goes out of her way to get attention".

          She's been the target of a sustained attack campaign for a while now. I can't say if it started before or after Adam Baldwin decided a video detailing Zoe Quinn's sex life was a "*Gate" and deserved a new hashtag to be associated with it, but the death threats followed her retweeting someone else's mash up of some of the more ludicrous attacks sent her way.

          But, FWIW, yes, you're victim blaming. You're seeing someone responding to attacks and claiming that makes them, what was the term you used, "histrionic"? Quite honestly, even if she was, she wouldn't deserve the death threats, and she wouldn't deserve screenshots forged tweets designed to make people hate her distributed around the Internet.

          ...of course, that's kinda the issue, right? Because if she's that bad, you certainly don't have to fake a fucking tweet from her to get others to agree what a terrible person she is.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by meta-monkey ( 321000 )

            I blame the victim for feeding the trolls. At this point, the perpetrator of these threats is just doing it for the lulz. No one is actually going to kill her. But if you're a troll, this entire gamergate situation is a bounteous feast. All you have to do is write a nasty tweet and Wu goes off railing against misogynist gamers. Gamers chaff and argue back at her. The troll could have nothing to do with the "gamer community." Just write one nasty tweet and watch the neckbeards and SJWs scream at each other.

          • Re:Getting trolled (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Kielistic ( 1273232 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:25PM (#48330417)

            That's not victim blaming; it is stating a fact. If you get a threat and continuously go on about it and advertise it to the world you will attract more attention seekers to make threats. No one is saying she deserves them we are just identifying the cause and effect. A cause and effect that no one knows any way to avoid. An effect that has always proven to be >99.99% without consequence so some people tell her it is no big deal. Unfortunately that doesn't go over well with someone that is pretty histrionic. Stop calling everything victim blaming. It is damaging and enables actual victim blaming.

            Yes, someone announcing on twitter the moment they receive any threats, retweeting any negative comments and publicly announcing how scared for their life they are is pretty much the definition of histrionic. It's also indicative of someone going out of their way for attention. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what it is.

            She hasn't been a continuous target. She fans the flames constantly. You can't claim to be a target of something you are also constantly antagonizing.

            • That's not victim blaming...we are just identifying the cause and effect

              Hmm.

              FWIW, I think there are multiple ways to deal with abusive online, and putting yourself in the head of someone being abused and expecting them to follow a script that you happen, right now, to think sounds like the best approach is unreasonable.

              At the end of the day, Wu is getting death threats. She's responding to them, not the other way around - the death threats were first, her publicizing them came second. Complaining she

        • by rcamans ( 252182 )

          The ability to "handle" slashdot "discussions" is not exactly a good criteria for anything or anyone.
          Now if we had discussions and reasonable conversations on slashdot, that would be a whole different ballgame.

        • by radtea ( 464814 )

          She uses a few instances of actual threats plus a lot of people calling her an idiot for saying moronic things to say she gets nonstop threats.

          It isn't clear what your point is here.

          She gets actual threats. You agree with that. So in response to actual threats she is offering a bounty to catch the people who have actually threatened her. You must also agree with that (if you aren't a sociopath) since a) actual threats are illegal and b) offering rewards to capture perpetrators of illegal behaviour is completely ordinary.

          So beyond agreeing that she gets actual threats and is responding in a completely appropriate way, what's your point? That she's

      • Is a death threat from an 8th grade that immediately starts giggling after they post it threatening? Because that's what you're getting upset about... and that's the point I was making with my post. You're literally get trolled by a modern version of Bart Simpson. You seem to think that because they have a keyboard they're for some reason adults.

        In the 80s I remember there was a wave of prank 911 calls. People were in an uproar. It confusing emergency services! Oh no! Every time there was a new call... ther

  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:12PM (#48328377)

    " albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes"

    Who's saying that?

    Oh that's right... people like Brianna Wu who claims she's winning because she's uh... gotta sue people who are no longer bothering her.

    It's NOT in its death throes, the media has to prop up that story to claim victory after many corporations pulled funding from gaming mags and sites that attacked gamers for being misogynists.

    This entire PR campaign has been nothing but pomp and circumstance to promote a meme and it FAILED.

    • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@CHICAGOcox.net minus city> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:27PM (#48328503)

      Is that why InternetAristocrat and KingOfPol left?

      Because GamerGate's doing so well right now?

      The whole thing is a giant ball of stupid masquerading as a "consumerist revolt".

      Taken at face value, it's ridiculous and does not understand what journalism is, or games journalism for that matter. Just because Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a 7.5 doesn't mean it's a bad score; nor is telling Nintendo to stop supporting them because it got a bad score appropriate. For a movement based on "ethics in journalism" it seems to not understand what that means.

      Taken with a grain of salt, it's a horrible witch hunt against "SJWs, feminazis and progressives" for daring to question the status quo in gaming. Heaven forbid I don't want more games based on the same tired of misogynistic tropes.

      Digging deeper than that, it's pretty transparent that the whole "movement" was started because Eron Gjoni couldn't move on after he broke up with Zoe Quinn and felt like pouring gasoline on the fire started by asshole angry crybabies at wizardchan who got upset that a *woman* of all people could suffer from depression.

      • And it's also burning out because they have collectively achieved exactly nothing in the "actually it's about ethics in journalism" banner in 2 months, in spite of massively massive amounts of time and effort to discredit women they claim to have no interest in.

        That arc was inevitably apparent to everyone who's familiar with gamers' actual history of trying to influence the industry [kinja-img.com]. There's this whole history of making big, entitled, noisy movements about petulant non-concerns, then when the cards were on

    • The original submission was worse. And in fact I cut and paste from it (to make a comment earlier) and accidentally included more mistakes. So I take the blame for this one...
  • by mrbene ( 1380531 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:15PM (#48328397)

    The NYPD has a similar program of bounties [nyc.gov] that is reasonably well known. Given that various Crime Stoppers programs have been going on since 1975 [wikipedia.org], I expect they're reasonably effective.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Continued funding for crime or drug reduction programs have nothing to do with their effectiveness (see MADD, DARE, 12 steps etc). ANY decrease for whatever reason (social, economic or other reasons) will cause the program to 'work' and therefore require more funding to increase their effectiveness, ANY increase for the same reasons will cause the program to be 'underfunded to work' and therefore require more funding to increase their effectiveness. They're just a boondoggle that work well to create politic

  • Even if caught, the prepubescent boys trolling her aren't going to end up in jail over this.

    Now if she could somehow bait one of them into posting a random, nonspecific remark about potentially shooting up a school on Facebook.. that might work...

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      "Even if caught, the prepubescent boys trolling her aren't going to end up in jail over this."
      most of them(probably none) aren't prepubescent boys. As a rule, they have better things to do.

  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:26PM (#48328493)

    Damn my spotlight is fading out. Lets get the media machine going so I can get back in the limelight.

    Really I don't know which bothers me more, that the press forms these phalanxes to shove alternate realities down our throats in a way that would have George Orwell blanching or that people line up and lap it up.

    Do you seriously think if anyone didn't want the death threats and publicity that comes with them, they would go around DARING people on the internet to make threats against them ?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo&world3,net> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @05:45PM (#48329443) Homepage Journal

      I find it interesting and disturbing how some people would rather believe elaborate conspiracy theories then believe a woman.

      The same accusations were made against Anita Sarkeesian. For some reason she posted death and rape threats against herself on Twitter, in order to lose money by being unable to attend public speaking events. Brianna Wu is wasting money on lawyers and obviously wants to lose $11,000 to put some random person behind bars... to massage her own ego or something.

      Or maybe it's a $11,000 dare, where the person daring to threaten her wins an all expenses paid holiday in jail.

      • I find it interesting and disturbing how some people would rather believe elaborate conspiracy theories then believe a woman.

        I find it hilarious that someone can believe in a vast conspiracy of gamers to kill these women, then try to trot out the conspiracy nut card. Oh maybe you honestly believe that the press is honest and trying to give you an accurate picture of events ?

      • by epyT-R ( 613989 )

        Actually, what gamergate is doing is criticizing several women's elaborate conspiracy theories about gaming and gamer culture. If you're going to compare, do it on like terms. Sarkeesian did the same thing, though I think she's smart enough to have done it purposely. She had a ton of tards give her 160k in 'sympathy' money to make a few youtube videos. Not bad. She probably thinks people like you are useful idiots.

        Maybe some of these women are self (or having others) posting fake threats, or they are tr

  • Good for her. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:31PM (#48328557)

    It's about time that teenage shitheads, and those who should have grown out of being teenage shitheads by now, realise that older engineers didn't create the internet just so they could to get their kicks by being antisocial shitheads towards everyone around them.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      Damn straight. The older engineers created it for them to be the antisocial shitheads; and now there's damned kids all over their lawn.

  • Another 15 minutes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudson@gm a i l.com> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @04:33PM (#48328573) Journal

    The threats were not serious. Going "OMG they have my ADDRESS!!! I have to move out!!!" She reported it to the police (the right thing to do) but temporarily moving was HER decision, not a police recommendation.

    People who make threats on the Internet do so because they're scared punks who hide behind anonymity. Would they actually go and DO something physical? Of course not - that would risk the very anonymity that allows them to act like punks in the first place.

    I get it - you let a bunch of anonymous freaks get to you. But doesn't there come a time when you should stop feeding them by showing how seriously you take them? The perps are laughing themselves silly at this point, because that's what trolls do - get an emotional (as opposed to rational) reaction. Anyone connected with IT knows you DFTT - unless you're trolling them back :-)

    Time was when everyone's name and address were public - we had this thing called a "phone book". For those of you too young to remember, go watch the original Terminator, where "Ahh-nold" gets the list of Sarah Connors from a phone book. Who cares is some coward has your address? Really?

    And before some punk says "So why don't you post your address online for all the cyber-bullies?" - already did that in another user's journal discussion on gamergate [slashdot.org].

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo&world3,net> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @05:51PM (#48329491) Homepage Journal

      The threats were not serious. Going "OMG they have my ADDRESS!!! I have to move out!!!" She reported it to the police (the right thing to do) but temporarily moving was HER decision, not a police recommendation.

      Proving you have researched your target and showing you have the means to locate and attack them is pretty much the definition of a serious threat. Any court of law would look at the pre-meditated nature of the threats and the fact that the perpetrator had the means to carry them out and send them to jail.

      What they did is a crime and temporarily moving out is a sensible and proportionate response.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    FBI and DHS are investigating and have CONFIRMED that two of the women claiming to have RECEIVED death threats... SENT THEM TO THEMSELVES.

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/859/945/263.jpg

    Past example: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist-charged-with-rape-threat-hoax-on-face

  • You don't feed the trolls.

    This is feeding the trolls.

    You receive death threats, you tell the police and let them do their thing.

  • The one thing that both sides can agree on is that the perpetrators should go to jail, they just both think that it is the other side doing the harassment.
  • Wu is trying to draw a link between Gamergate and the tragedy in Port Orchard - https://twitter.com/Spacekatga... [twitter.com]

    Irregardless of the fact that: Gamergate discussion is actively prohibited on 4chan, the murderer has no connection to Gamergate, and no death threats were involved.

    Please stop giving this woman a platform. She's obviously in it for the advertising and attention. Screenshots of her game have been plastered all over news articles for weeks now. She's self-reporting that she no longer receives thre

    • Link to her not getting threats anymore?

      But yes, heaven forbid a woman who's worried about rape and murder threats link the systemic violence against women with violence against a woman.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @05:34PM (#48329295)

    Wouldn't it be funny if the pro-GG side found the person sending the threats and collected on the $11k? A few months ago when GG was still housed on /v/ the reaction to people posting hateful/abrasive stuff on twatter was always called out and the poster berated for being an idiot. The pro-GG side doesn't stand for harassment on either side; the ones harassing people are on the extremes or are trolls looking to make trouble.

    Food for thought: The major camps in GG can be summed up like this:
    1. Trolls who make the death threats or are trying to inflame the issue (both sides).
    2. People genuinely concerned with ethics in games Journalism (TotalBiscuit).
    3. "Games Journalism" Media/central anti figures (Quinn, Wu, etc, anti), attempting to either silence group 2's dissent or gain fame by playing up their victimization. The "'"I'm being forced out of my home by death threats' on her way to the airport to fly to a conference filled with thousands of people she doesn't know" type and the "gamers are dead" type.
    4. Those reacting to group 3's name-calling/bully-tactics (Boogie). The "average Joe/Jane" gamer who doesn't like being called a misogynist or a hateful person for just playing games.
    5. Those supporting group 3 because of the harassment from group 1 (pro), who seem to be seeing a social issue (innocent woman being attacked by evil men) and want to fight against that. Views group 2/4 as slut-shaming victim-blaming patriarchy and has no intention of changing that view.

    I also found it rather ironic when Sarkeesian went on Colbert and talked about how too many women portrayed in video games were damsels in distress and asked why more women couldn't solve their own problems.

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @05:43PM (#48329405) Homepage

    The troll is only given power by those that respond. Don't like the trolls? Then don't feed them. It really is that simple. What we really have here is professional trolls going on a rampage and the inevitable and foreseeable backlash occuring.

    This includes the original SJWs, as well as the initial media outlets that "rushed to their defense", and all the rest that have just exploited the circus afterwards.

    A lot of "gamer gate" is just paying customers pissed off that the industry mouthpieces decided to insult them all.

"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees

Working...