GamerGate - Autistic MRA manchildren and the twitter feminists who love them

  • Thread starter Thread starter HG 400
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
From what I recall GG 'won' the moment the gamers are dead articles came out as any posibility of getting shit locked down collapsed after that. Anti-gg claims to win Gamergate is the equivelant of saying the Romans won the Visigoth sack of Rome or the Europe won the Black death.
Once Gamers are dead came out the only real question was how much damage Gamergate was going to do before it died down .

GamerGate would have won ONLY IF they'd been successful in setting up an alternative to the sources peddling the existing narrative. This never happened, though lord knows BasedGamer and that creepy PUA dude who's name eludes me ATM certainly did their best to scam for shekels set up alternatives.

I'm not sure what happened to Quarter Pounder's of recent vintage attempt at a site, whatever the hell it was. Wonder if it is still around. Haven't heard him shilling for it lately, but I don't watch most of his videos any more, either.
 
GamerGate would have won ONLY IF they'd been successful in setting up an alternative to the sources peddling the existing narrative. This never happened, though lord knows BasedGamer and that creepy PUA dude who's name eludes me ATM certainly did their best to scam for shekels set up alternatives.

I'm not sure what happened to Quarter Pounder's of recent vintage attempt at a site, whatever the hell it was. Wonder if it is still around. Haven't heard him shilling for it lately, but I don't watch most of his videos any more, either.
A few (minor) gaming news sources sided with GG, and some of them are still around, but let's face it: they didn't do it out of journalistic integrity. They did it because bashing Kotaku and Gawker was fun and they thought they could capture that sperglord demographic that wasn't being catered to.
 
From what I recall GG 'won' the moment the gamers are dead articles came out as any posibility of getting shit locked down collapsed after that. Anti-gg claims to win Gamergate is the equivelant of saying the Romans won the Visigoth sack of Rome or the Europe won the Black death.
Once Gamers are dead came out the only real question was how much damage Gamergate was going to do before it died down .
I think that was the beginning of the end. The synchronized glorified blog posts showed the autists that never forget their full hand of cards. "Game's Journalism isn't corrupt and incestuous!" *immediately send out the same article across a dozen outlets....*

Sure...


I think the big issue I haven't seen talked about is that the "games journalists" are bloggers, not journalists, and have none of the training, or ethical background of traditional journalists. Once that boil got lanced, the "journalists" got taken up by real news agencies, and the infection of non-journalists into journalist roles spread.

One of my old companies was guilty of something similar. They'd call everyone an engineer. Chemist, Programmer, Biologist, Dog Fancier, did not matter, your title is engineer, and they'd have entry level engineering roles with 0-3 years experience, and flexible entry criteria.


After a while they started getting an influx of "engineers" in critical roles that had no formal training in any sort of engineering. Basically the internal resume would look like this. B.S. in Biology, and 10 years of experience as a "mechanical engineer."

They'd get a role on a design team as "THE" mechanical engineer, and not know the first thing about finite element modeling.

This is basically what happened after GG happened, with the Sped Fuck Crew, after they torpedoed their outlets. Moving to another outlet, they throw out writing samples and "I was senior editor for blah blah blah." I would not be surprised if anyone at WaPo, or NYT, or anywhere else never bothered asking them, "so what does a senior editor do?"
 
GamerGate would have won ONLY IF they'd been successful in setting up an alternative to the sources peddling the existing narrative. This never happened, though lord knows BasedGamer and that creepy PUA dude who's name eludes me ATM certainly did their best to scam for shekels set up alternatives.

I'm not sure what happened to Quarter Pounder's of recent vintage attempt at a site, whatever the hell it was. Wonder if it is still around. Haven't heard him shilling for it lately, but I don't watch most of his videos any more, either.
Thing is, nobody in GG was passionate about being journalists themselves, only in consuming passable work. Powerleveling for a moment, I didn't understand at the time why anti-GG were so pissed off by #NotYourShield, or an open discussion on the absolute state of games journalism. I did think they were using any instance of mean tweets or bullying as an excuse to ignore other topics, because in the normal world you can park some ideas and deep-dive into other ones. The relentless attempts to demean and silence their opposition is what really entrenched the few that cared about GG... because it's the double-whammy of being attacked viciously, and then over a very short timespan your opposition doing and embodying everything they initially accused you of.

I didn't realise how much of a faux-pas these topics were because I wasn't really politically engaged, and from these people's perspective it was a front in this culture war that they staked their entire worldview and moral compass on. Anybody who didn't believe Zoe Quinn needed to be a bigot for it all to make sense. Any women or minorities that thought GG made decent points were either somehow benefitting financially or harbour some type of self-loathing. To anybody on the outside it was as bizarre as it sounded. Being black or a sexual minority doesn't come with prescribed views, especially on a topic so petty, but it did to anti-GG (especially the ones who did it for free btw) because despite being so petty, it being true made a farce of every narrative they lived by until this point.

This is probably why the likes of Sargon were poised to capitalise on the discontent. Absent a decent podcast, putting on Sargon and have him spend 35 minutes dissecting a bad Vox article is quite a low-effort affair whilst you do other stuff. 6 years on, most GGers grew distinct views and moved away from that, coming to this site, or the 'dirtbag left', or the MAGAtard / alt-right millieu, or even into normal stone-cold politics.
At the end of the day, it got a lot of people politically engaged that before had no inclination either way. For Anti-GG, in over-reacting to the anger they damned themselves. And I do mean over-react, because the journo sector is oversaturated as is, and even the thought leaders of GG only had a passing interest in gaming overall. They would never challenge the job security of Kotaku writers, in fact /r/KIA only got the idea to lobby advertisers out of sponsoring anti-GG sites because journos and their pals loudly entertained such action first against the likes of reddit and Escapist-- not even for taking a side, just for hosting the discussion.
Before, their audience was just mad about snide jabs about Mortal Kombat character designs or inane concern trolling over shooting Africans when a game is set in Africa. Now? They antagonised a bunch of introverts so hard that some wound up becoming the slurs they threw at them-- the genesis of their drive being to align with anybody who fought back and got on the SJW's nerves.

That's the real failure of anti-GG, in their zeal, they empowered a generation of apolitical people into joining literally any movement or group counter to the one they were trying to promote. Their hostility guaranteed nobody would be sympathetic to their lunacy, and though GG sure as shit didn't win (it didn't even have win conditions), anti-GG lost by earning the ire of anybody that had to deal with them
 
GamerGate would have won ONLY IF they'd been successful in setting up an alternative to the sources peddling the existing narrative. This never happened, though lord knows BasedGamer and that creepy PUA dude who's name eludes me ATM certainly did their best to scam for shekels set up alternatives.

I'm not sure what happened to Quarter Pounder's of recent vintage attempt at a site, whatever the hell it was. Wonder if it is still around. Haven't heard him shilling for it lately, but I don't watch most of his videos any more, either.


It's debatable if GG even had a coherant objective, It's why I used the visigoths and the black death as examples. You're talking about an angry rampage rather than a strategy.
 
It's debatable if GG even had a coherant objective, It's why I used the visigoths and the black death as examples. You're talking about an angry rampage rather than a strategy.
GG was different things to different people. For some, it really was about ethics in video game journalism and little more, but for others, it was unironically about what the critics said it was - turning gaming into a cis-het-male panacea (see OAG). And there were a whole bunch of people in between. I think that’s part of the reason that it fell apart so quickly to the extent that even some of its biggest cheerleaders turned into regretful critics. The Tea Party had some of the same problems
and fell apart in much the same way. It’s the nature of leaderless movements.

And I’m no historian but I’m willing to bet the Visigoths had much stronger leadership and coherent goals than we GGers did.
 
I think the big issue I haven't seen talked about is that the "games journalists" are bloggers, not journalists, and have none of the training, or ethical background of traditional journalists. Once that boil got lanced, the "journalists" got taken up by real news agencies, and the infection of non-journalists into journalist roles spread.

If anything, "real" journalists are even worse, because people actually pay attention to them, and because they have, presumably, at least been exposed to the concept of journalistic ethics, and possibly even taken a course in it, and chosen to reject behaving ethically. "Ethics in game journalism" doesn't matter because games "journalism" itself doesn't matter.
 
If anything, "real" journalists are even worse, because people actually pay attention to them, and because they have, presumably, at least been exposed to the concept of journalistic ethics, and possibly even taken a course in it, and chosen to reject behaving ethically. "Ethics in game journalism" doesn't matter because games "journalism" itself doesn't matter.
I see it the same way as the Unforgivable Sin. You can't blame someone who has never known any better for doing something shitty, but Journalists have to go through writing and rhetoric courses and, usually, get taught ethics. They know better. They chose to be like that knowing full well there was another way.
 
It's debatable if GG even had a coherant objective, It's why I used the visigoths and the black death as examples. You're talking about an angry rampage rather than a strategy.
As a decentralized movement without leadership or even stated objectives, it had no precise aim. However, if you look at it from a distance, there is a common motivation: "These fucks will not control us." And that's a pretty big accomplishment, because what GG showed is that the SJW strategy of entryism, emotional appeals and eventual colonization can fail if the targets just do not put up with it. The journos were used to going through fandoms like a hot knife in butter: SF awards, comic books, most role-playing games. And to their surprise, a bunch of disorganized nobodies gave them a bloody nose. They will neither forget nor forgive that one.

That's why GG, an otherwise unimportant side battle in the Culture War, became kinda-important beyond the actual scale of what happened. It showed SJWs the possibility that they may not actually be winning this war, and set an example for others that resisting an invasion can be successful.

So altogether, it was a good show. It was a ton of fun while it lasted, and every time someone screeches about it, it can warm our black hearts a little. We don't need to belittle it.
 
They will neither forget nor forgive that one.

I don't disagree, but their collective paws are every bit on the reins of power that they were before. Meaning they continue to control the narrative, and in fact are only ramping up their control over it as time goes on. As nebulous as the "they," "them," and "their" are here, I'm going to lazily assume everyone reading these messages will know "them" when they see "them." Because, well, at the end of the day I'm pretty lazy myself.
 
I don't disagree, but their collective paws are every bit on the reins of power that they were before. Meaning they continue to control the narrative, and in fact are only ramping up their control over it as time goes on. As nebulous as the "they," "them," and "their" are here, I'm going to lazily assume everyone reading these messages will know "them" when they see "them." Because, well, at the end of the day I'm pretty lazy myself.

True, they did keep the reins of power in their hands post-GG and indeed, they ramped up their control and fought even harder.

But now the grip of power is starting to slip thanks to COVID-19 wrecking everyone's shit on the financial side of things combined with a string of major woke flops from multiple companies and a wider general public that is increasingly becoming fed up with the preachy woke leftism and general pretentious malaise that permeated the culture of "Current Year" and I think they are starting to realize it.

At the risk of being bombarded with "Optimistic" ratings, I think we're in the final phases of the "Current Year" SJW cultural zeitgeist and the backlash against woke culture is happening a bit faster than expected thanks to the pandemic and economic meltdown.

When I say the Anti-GG side won the battle and lost the war, this is what I mean by it. The SJW's kept control of the narrative and remained in power post-GG, even if they had a bloody nose from it, but now they're at risk of losing it all as the industry cuts them loose to save face and keep from losing more money.

As ridiculous and dumb as the GamerGate slapfights were, it did lead to the Woke Left going into overdrive and they overplayed their hand. Combine that with other more important trends in the Millennial Left and we're now seeing the SJW's begin to self-destruct and become more of a liability than an asset for the corporate and political establishment.

The SJW's are going to implode and die out like the Religious Right did in the previous culture war. At best, they'll be kept in the public memory by being invoked as a spectral boogeyman for whatever new right-wing moral guardians pop up to fill the void.

Because war...war never changes. Even if it's a culture war.
 
gg_trump_gg.png


Journalists continuing to get triggered by Gamergate is why Gamergate is still funny years after it has been over.
 
I'm legit curious how they actually manage to link the two… Is the G-word even mentioned in the article at all, or just in the dumb tweet?
 
I'm legit curious how they actually manage to link the two… Is the G-word even mentioned in the article at all, or just in the dumb tweet?
Four years ago, a Breitbart writer famed for championing a harassment campaign targeting women in video games used his air time during a White House press briefing to blast Twitter. He was angry that he’d lost his verification badge, that little blue check mark, after the company said he had repeatedly violated the platform’s rules against inciting harassment. But he insisted that Twitter was actually punishing him for something else.

“It’s becoming very clear,” Milo Yiannopoulos told Josh Earnest, then the press secretary for the Obama administration, in March of 2016, “that Twitter and Facebook in particular are censoring and punishing conservative and libertarian points of view.” Later that year, Twitter banned him entirely following his role in a harassment campaign against the actress Leslie Jones after she starred in a remake of Ghostbusters that swapped the original male lead roles for female ones, infuriating misogynists. In response, he claimed that Twitter was now a “a no-go zone for conservatives.”

Other conservative and far-right figures have regularly lodged similar complaints in the years since, depicting Twitter’s enforcement of its policies against abuse and misinformation as a crusade laced with anti-conservative bias; the charges have then filtered up into conservative and mainstream press coverage. But the issue came to a head this week, after Twitter appended fact-checks to two of President Trump’s tweets, noting that they contained misleading claims about mail-in voting.

Trump attacked the move as censorship and promised a response. He’s just signed an executive order that could penalize major social-media companies for perceived censorship of conservative views.

This moment feels like an inevitable escalation of a conflict that has been playing out across the major social-media companies, but particularly Twitter, for years—one that Yiannopoulos’s White House stunt foreshadowed. As platforms reckon with their role in amplifying misinformation, abuse, and extreme views, the arguments about content moderation that once lived on the fringes of Twitter’s rules increasingly involve people at the very center of mainstream power.

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” Trump tweeted to his 80 million followers this week. “We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.” His comments were covered widely in the media, as are many of his more inflammatory or conspiratorial tweets.

Hours before news of the coming executive order broke, Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway went on Fox News and encouraged viewers to hound a Twitter employee, spelling out his account handle and blaming him for the decision to fact-check the president’s tweets. “Somebody in San Francisco go wake him up and tell him he’s about to get a lot more followers,” she said.

Trump himself tagged the employee in a tweet on Thursday, effectively directing supporters to fill his mentions with abusive messages. The Twitter employee is also reportedly receiving death threats.

This cycle has been set off in the past when Twitter has rolled out new policies designed to protect targets of abuse, suspended far-right accounts for rule violations, or stepped up efforts to slow the spread of misinformation. It begins with waves of speculation arguing that Twitter isn’t actually, say, enforcing its new abuse policies but instead implementing a secret anti-conservative agenda that must be stopped. Then there’s a rush to find and target someone responsible for implementing it. The blueprint dates back at least to Gamergate, the harassment campaign championed by Yiannopoulos targeting women in video-game development, whose supporters also claimed instead to be fighting a conspiracy against them ( “It’s actually about ethics in gaming journalism”).

The president uses his own account to continually test Twitter’s boundaries, and now he’s become the catalyst for a new cycle. In just the past week, he’s used his platform to amplify conspiracy theories suggesting that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough murdered a staffer and to spread misinformation about mail-in voting in an earlier series of tweets that were not subject to fact-check labels. He thanked a “Cowboys for Trump” account that tweeted a video where an unidentified man proclaimed that “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” (After cheers from the audience, the speaker then clarifies that he meant the comment “politically.”) The widower of the deceased staffer at the heart of the Scarborough conspiracy theory has begged Twitter to intervene.

The company had not taken any action against those tweets as of Thursday, although it has indicated that it is working to expand the labeling system that was used to flag some of Trump’s tweets about mail-in voting.

Until the fact-checking labels were introduced to two of Trump’s tweets on Tuesday, the platform had scrupulously avoided enforcing its rules against Trump’s account. Some explanations for the enforcement loopholes have cited the newsworthiness of otherwise rule-breaking content and Trump’s status as the head of a government.

But Trump, despite the lack of evidence to support claims of systemic social-media bias against conservatives, has repeatedly promised to take up the issue on behalf of some of his more prominent supporters. In 2018, he accused Google of “rigging” news search results against conservative media, repeating a version of a claim that Trump supporters—including vloggers Diamond and Silk—had circulated in conservative media for a few days earlier. Diamond and Silk (whose real names are Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson) claimed at a House Judiciary Committee hearing that April that they were being “censored” by Facebook because of their support for Trump.

In 2019, Trump met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and reportedly took the opportunity to complain about losing Twitter followers. On the same day as that meeting, Trump tweeted that the platform was “very discriminatory.” He later tweeted that his administration was “closely” monitoring conservatives’ complaints of censorship. Later that year, Trump held a “social-media summit” with dozens of his most passionate online supporters to air their collective complaints that Google, Facebook, and Twitter were censoring them.

None of these claims have to be true to be popular, which is something Trump and his online supporters know well. They just need to sound controversial enough to grab attention—or, better yet, redirect it from something else.

Tl;dr, it's the same old bitching that people the journo dislikes dare to complain about corporations.
 
1593733689965.png

Silicon Valley Elite Discuss Journalists Having Too Much Power in Private App
During a conversation held Wednesday night on the invite-only Clubhouse app—an audio social network popular with venture capitalists and celebrities—entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, several Andreessen Horowitz venture capitalists, and, for some reason, television personality Roland Martin spent at least an hour talking about how journalists have too much power to "cancel" people and wondering what they, the titans of Silicon Valley, could do about it.

The call shows how Silicon Valley millionaires, who have been coddled by the press and lauded as innovators and disruptors, fundamentally misunderstand the role of journalism the moment it turns a critical eye to their industry. It also suggests they’re eager to find new ways to hit back at what they see as unfavorable and unfair press coverage.

Motherboard obtained a recording of the conversation, which took place on Clubhouse, an app which as of late May had just 1,500 users. The app was valued at $100 million after a reported $12 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz, and requires an invite to join. In May, New York Times internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz wrote that the app is "where venture capitalists have gathered to mingle with one another while they are quarantined in their homes."

"Sometimes there is a tarot card reader critiquing a member’s Instagram account; sometimes it is a dating advice show; sometimes bored people sound off about anything that pops into their mind," she wrote.


On Wednesday night, the topic of conversation was Lorenz herself, who had been listening earlier in the conversation but left partway through. After she left, the participants began discussing whether Lorenz was playing "the woman card" when speaking out about her harassment following a Twitter altercation with Srinivasan.

"You can't fucking hit somebody, attack them and just say, 'Hey, I have ovaries and therefore, you can't fight back,'" Felicia Horowitz, founder of the Horowitz Family Foundation and wife of Andreessen Horowitz cofounder Ben Horowitz, said.

In recent days Lorenz, who criticized luggage startup Away co-CEO Steph Korey on Twitter Wednesday, has been harassed and impersonated on Twitter.


On the call, Srinivasan suggested that Lorenz—who earlier in the day had accused him on Twitter of "constantly trying to destroy my career on the internet and in private"—was overreacting and that she was perhaps scared of him, and that this was why she left the conversation that night on Clubhouse.

"Is Taylor afraid of a brown man on the street? Then she shouldn't be afraid of a brown man in Clubhouse," Srinivasan said. "I have literally done nothing other than one previous tweet. Number one, right? So the whole, you know, talking about tweeting as you know, harassment—completely illegitimate, completely wrong, completely fabricated and just false."

The audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control from a broader conversation earlier in the call about the state of journalism and what VCs should do to receive better coverage. Srinivasan, formerly a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, claimed that "the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19," and claimed that relying on the press is "outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you," comparable to the United States having outsourced its medical supply chain. He proposed that the approaches to truth and accountability offered by GitHub, venture capital funding, and cryptocurrency all offer better models for journalism than "the East Coast model of 'Respect my authori-tay.'"

When asked for comment about the Clubhouse chat, Srinivasan screenshotted our request and tweeted about it.

"When it comes to our industry, there’s a really, really toxic dynamic that exists right now," Nait Jones, an Andreessen Horowitz VC, said on the call while speaking about recent reports about abuse in the tech industry. "Because those stories were so popular and drove so much traffic, they also created a market for more of those stories. They created a pressure on many reporters to find the next one of those stories inside of a fast growing tech company because those stories play very well on Twitter, especially around protecting vulnerable people."

(In 2020, the idea that fishing for “clicks” to drive ad revenue is a successful or even common business model is a fallacy. Publications that rely exclusively on advertising are failing at an astonishing rate; financially, many journalistic outlets are increasingly moving away from an ad-based revenue model driven by traffic, and instead focus on live events, subscriptions, optioning their articles to movie studios, and other models that rely on having a dedicated readership that trusts the publication).

The exclusive users of Clubhouse on the call seemed to conceive of themselves as humble citizens preyed upon by corrupted elites cravenly lusting after money and power; this reached a bizarre apogee when Srinivasan boasted of standing up for the CEO of a scandal-plagued luggage brand, depicting her as all but powerless because of her relatively low Twitter follower count. The conversation essentially resembled a Gamergate chat, with people obsessing over minute drama and, at times, suggesting that Lorenz had crossed a line on Twitter and must be punished.

"How can there be an accountability function that's implementable across all media that allows for that to happen, that pushback to happen without it being turned around and can become some toxic thing where all types of power dynamics are being used, and people have their weapons out," Jones said.

"Her employer should be saying, you cross the line with your editorial comments," Martin said, adding that "If I'm [Srinivasan], the argument that I would make to her bosses is you should be instructing your reporters not to be making editorial judgments about someone. Stick to reporting."

“Taylor is an excellent reporter doing incredibly relevant reporting for this moment. She, and all reporters, should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment,” Choire Sicha, editor of the NYTimes Styles desk, told Motherboard in an email.

Clubhouse founders Rothan Seth and Paul Davison didn't respond to a request for comment. Jones did not respond to a request for comment. Andreessen Horowitz declined to comment.

*

The conversation was set off by a series of exhausting, insidery events from the last two weeks. Some in the Silicon Valley set turned their sights on the Times after Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist who ran the philosophy blog SlateStarCodex, deleted the entire blog because he said the Times was going to "dox" him by publishing his real name in an upcoming story. (It is worth noting that Alexander has republished SlateStarCodex blogs in books using his full name.) This event resurfaced an ongoing and tedious discussion among venture capitalist types about journalism ethics, business models, and publishing incentives.

Wednesday, Korey, the co-CEO of Away, a direct to consumer luggage brand that was the subject of an expose in The Verge last year, published a series of Instagram Story posts in which she suggested that she was unfairly targeted by The Verge in part because she is a woman. She also said that journalists should be easier to sue, and suggested that the main thing driving journalism is "clicks." The Verge story focused on a culture of abuse at Away under Korey's leadership; workers there said they were prevented from taking vacation, were banned from emailing each other, and worked extremely long hours.

“The incentive isn’t to report what’s happening,” Korey wrote. “It’s to write things that will be shared by people on social media. And several of these digital-only outlets have nearly nonexistent editorial standards (especially the click baity-y ones, you know who they are). Side note: I could write a whole separate essay about how defamation lawsuits should be easier to pursue now that misrepresentation *is* the business model of some of these outlets.” (In the aftermath of The Verge's story, Korey announced she’d hired the well-known defamation firm Clare Locke LLP, which has made a business out of getting unflattering stories stalled or killed.)

While Korey’s Instagram comments were a supposed critique of the journalism industry, they looked at times a lot more like a claim that The Verge story was unfair or inaccurate in ways she didn’t actually address.

After Korey posted her stories on Instagram, a number of journalists commented on them, including Lorenz, who tweeted "Steph Korey, the disgraced former CEO of Away luggage company, is ranting on IG stories about the media. Her posts are incoherent and it’s disappointing to see a woman who ran a luggage brand perpetuate falsehoods like this abt an industry she clearly has 0 understanding of."

Lorenz's tweet was immediately tweeted about by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists, most notably Srinivasan, who eventually made a seven-tweet thread in which he suggested Lorenz, and journalists like her, are "sociopaths."

That same day, a self-described Taylor Lorenz "parody" Twitter account started retweeting Srinivasan and other tech investors and executives critical of her work. The account's bio also links to a website, also self-described as parody, which is dedicated to harassing Lorenz. (Twitter told Motherboard it deleted another account for impersonating Lorenz.)

Yesterday Lorenz called out Srinivasan on Twitter by tagging him and asked his friends, like Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz, to help end the conflict, which eventually continued on Clubhouse.

*

In Korey's analysis, exposing the conditions of workers is clickbait designed to attract eyeballs; she also argued that female founders were more likely to be attacked, especially by young female reporters. The story about Korey’s alleged misconduct was written by a young reporter named Zoe Schiffer. Korey added a few minutes later that she’d gotten word her comments were filtering through to Twitter, and wrote, in part, “I believe the overwhelming majority of young female reporters are truly excellent. It has been the case that the female-founder takedowns tend to be written by young women, but I do not think they represent the whole demographic whatsoever.”

Korey’s avid defenders in the Clubhouse conversation agreed with that analysis.

“The coverage seems to be so one-sided around the people running the companies,” one person on the call whom Motherboard could not immediately identify complained. “They're all abusers, they're all trying to get rich. It's just down, down, down. It's almost depressing to watch, as someone who's an advocate for building things. It's hard to watch the coverage, it's almost anti-building things ...The whole entire DNA of Silicon Valley has been optimism from day one."

Articles like the Verge's investigation into Away do not appear out of thin air. People who work at tech companies—often burdened with non-disclosure agreements—take risks to discuss labor conditions at their company. At the time the Verge article was published, Korey apologized. Wednesday, she was suggesting she'd been unfairly targeted, and that "a few who are using the media platform they have access to further their careers by knowingly misrepresenting female founders for clicks & their own profile/fame."

"I spoke up for her because she had, you know, 8,000 followers, and she was being attacked by a New York Times reporter as a disgraced former CEO and she's actually still, you know, current co-CEO," Srinivasan said. "I believe in standing up for those people who don't have a voice, who cannot stand up for themselves."

Lost in the shuffle are the employees who say this apparently powerless CEO still presides over a broken company. Thursday afternoon, a coalition of Away employees emailed Away's leadership to say that "Steph's Comments Are Hurting Us."

We “have been hurt and left deflated by Steph Korey’s recent action on Instagram and Twitter," they wrote in the email, which was obtained by Motherboard and was acknowledged by Away's cofounder Jen Rubio. "We are writing to you as the employees of Away and asking that something is done to address the story that is building around Steph's Instagram and Twitter comments over the last several days.

Steph has been largely absent during this health pandemic, the company's layoffs and the civil unrest surrounding Black Lives Matter. This made sense. She was on mat leave and taking time to focus on her personal life over her professional one. This is why her social media activity over the last few days has been so surprising and frankly hurtful as employees of this company."

Korey and Away's cofounders did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 5:43 P.M. EST

In response to a request for comment from Motherboard, Away's vice president of communications and corporate affairs shared two screenshots. The first was an email from Jen Rubio, Away's co-founder, president, and Chief Brand Officer, addressed to the employees who had complained about Korey's comments. (The email comes from Rubio's email account; it's also cosigned by Stuart Haselden, the company's co-CEO).

Rubio wrote that Korey's comments "do not reflect or affect our current company priorities and the deep work we're doing about diversity, equity and inclusion." The email also stated that Stuart Haselden will take on the role of sole CEO at Away in 2020, and that Korey has updated her social media profiles to state that her views are her own.


In her own Slack response, Korey wrote: "I understand that I have a responsibility as co-founder and co-CEO to commit to using my personal platforms to support our priorities, not distract by them." She apologized to "anyone I hurt by shifting the focus away from these important cultural moments this past week," referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and the company's stated commitment to "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion," as Korey put it. Both statements say Away's priority is "becoming an anti-racist company."
 
For those who gave up on reading that boring article before it mentioned anything about GamerGate, here's the only part that does:

The conversation essentially resembled a Gamergate chat, with people obsessing over minute drama and, at times, suggesting that Lorenz had crossed a line on Twitter and must be punished.

Yeah, that's it. That warranted putting the G word in the headline.

"Resembled a Gamergate chat?" What is that even supposed to mean? Is the author complaining that GamerGaters obsessed over minute drama while writing an article that obsesses over minute drama?

Fuck journalists with a rusty scythe.
 
Back
Top Bottom