31–40 of 49 posts
At a certain point you're just creating evidence out of thin air, like a crappy magician's trick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No, just no. It was about the world’s worst ex-boyfriend riling up a hate mob. The “ethics in journalism” pretext was adopted to deflect criticism but it was always a shameful disservice to anyone who legitimately cared about the issue. Among other things, note how the hate was focused on a few women who were not journalists and how frequently the attackers denied that harassment was even happening: if their concern…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, just no. It was about the world’s worst ex-boyfriend riling up a hate mob. The “ethics in journalism” pretext was adopted to deflect criticism but it was always a shameful disservice to anyone who legitimately cared about the issue. Among other things, note how the hate was focused on a few women who were not journalists and how frequently the attackers denied that harassment was even happening: if their concern…
All I know is, if the pitchforks and torches mob went after the gaming press for some indie title instead of decades of bending backwards for EA and the the rest of the AAA’s, it sounds like a pretty crummy misprioritized mob.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition, everything is a lie because you can not convey all relevant information ever. I.e. all information exchange is a partial information exchange. Intent-based analysis is not useful, because you can't know the intent and also the intent doesn't make any difference as to what the effect will be - that well-intended source can have the same or worse misleading effect as an ill-intended source, and the…
You are correct when you say that you cannot convey all relevant information. But your conclusion is still wrong. For example, a lot of Covid reporting really annoyed me, on both sides. One side would say "Here's facts A and B; see, the vaccine is working!". The other side would say "Here's facts C and D; see, the vaccine is killing people!". Over and over again. What we needed was the article that said "Here's A, B,…
I agree that this was important but am baffled how you missed the many articles like that in mainstream news sources (NPR, NYT, Washington Post, etc.), as well as the various scientists and public health experts who wrote blog posts digging into those discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No, just no. It was about the world’s worst ex-boyfriend riling up a hate mob. The “ethics in journalism” pretext was adopted to deflect criticism but it was always a shameful disservice to anyone who legitimately cared about the issue. Among other things, note how the hate was focused on a few women who were not journalists and how frequently the attackers denied that harassment was even happening: if their concern…
A minority of the voices there were criticisms being levelled against Kotaku and IGN across the whole affair, as well as the whole on-site review fiasco. However I tend to refer to that as "pre-gamergate" since this was out there before the Brianna Wu stuff iirc.
Also the responsibility to do good journalism lies with the journalist and their publication, not the game company (the game company cannot objectively cover their own game anyhow). That was a mistake the gamergaters made a lot, and further damaged their credibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition, everything is a lie because you can not convey all relevant information ever. I.e. all information exchange is a partial information exchange. Intent-based analysis is not useful, because you can't know the intent and also the intent doesn't make any difference as to what the effect will be - that well-intended source can have the same or worse misleading effect as an ill-intended source, and the…
You are correct when you say that you cannot convey all relevant information. But your conclusion is still wrong. For example, a lot of Covid reporting really annoyed me, on both sides. One side would say "Here's facts A and B; see, the vaccine is working!". The other side would say "Here's facts C and D; see, the vaccine is killing people!". Over and over again. What we needed was the article that said "Here's A, B,…
And, more importantly, this kind of rhetoric or definition doesn't help anything, even if there is a clear definition which there isn't one. It's the cynicism, without any use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, just no. It was about the world’s worst ex-boyfriend riling up a hate mob. The “ethics in journalism” pretext was adopted to deflect criticism but it was always a shameful disservice to anyone who legitimately cared about the issue. Among other things, note how the hate was focused on a few women who were not journalists and how frequently the attackers denied that harassment was even happening: if their concern…
Agreed that the hate campaign against indie devs was harassment and uncalled for, and agreed that the movement was largely trash, but you're skimming over a few details that I think are relevant. A minority of the voices there were criticisms being levelled against Kotaku and IGN across the whole affair, as well as the whole on-site review fiasco. However I tend to refer to that as "pre-gamergate" since this was out…
There’s definitely room to blame both - just as it’s wrong to offer a bribe even if it’s not accepted - but I think it was quite telling how the mob just wasn’t interested in that. There’s probably an interesting story about power gradients and how large companies can manipulate reviews to their advantage by withholding access - similar to how the car review industry works - but it just wasn’t what people were there for.
Does anyone remember "gamergate"? Hear me out, but I don't thing we have really come to terms with the fallout yet. The industry was legitimately overrun with nepotism and disclosure problems. They benefited from a toxic and obsessive audience for years. Then their audience turned on them (for a mix of legitimate and illegitimate reasons), but the industry players were the ones who held the microphone. They got to de…
But their targets were also just ultimately, not worth it. They were mediocre people putting out mediocre product that would have gotten consigned to the dustbin of humanity had they been left alone.
It was just a bunch of mediocre shitheads not able to accept the reality that they were mediocre shitheads.
Not to mention, after a while, after finding out more about everything in general, the real irony is that just about every industry is overrun with nepotism and disclosure problems. Like what went on with regards to kickoff Gamergate was relatively tame compared to just the past month vis a vis FTX/Alameda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct when you say that you cannot convey all relevant information. But your conclusion is still wrong. For example, a lot of Covid reporting really annoyed me, on both sides. One side would say "Here's facts A and B; see, the vaccine is working!". The other side would say "Here's facts C and D; see, the vaccine is killing people!". Over and over again. What we needed was the article that said "Here's A, B,…
By your word and the definition, saying true things is now lying. I don't agree with such a definition. And it's not just about what a word means either. Calling someone lying is essentially declaring you won't engage with the other side, and by your definition, you are not interested in engaging vast majority of anything, and making the meaning of lying nearly useless. People advocating and focusing on the argument…
Does anyone remember "gamergate"? Hear me out, but I don't thing we have really come to terms with the fallout yet. The industry was legitimately overrun with nepotism and disclosure problems. They benefited from a toxic and obsessive audience for years. Then their audience turned on them (for a mix of legitimate and illegitimate reasons), but the industry players were the ones who held the microphone. They got to de…
"Gamergate" was the finest example of the worst people you know actually having a point. Or maybe the worst people glommed onto it because it was a way to shit on the people they like shitting on. But their targets were also just ultimately, not worth it. They were mediocre people putting out mediocre product that would have gotten consigned to the dustbin of humanity had they been left alone. It was just a bunch of…
We take for granted that "professional streamer" is now a thing. The content creator industry is a little less centralized, and that took pressure away.