DamnIt Mass Media
Sensastionalize everything to pursue corporate agendas.
Mass media is damning these days. Is the threat of the pioneering space of social media a force far to powerful to reckon with? Sites like Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter are constantly scrutinized by "news" sites, yet, hyprocritcally, use "clickbait" and sensationalism to pursue their own means.
Yet, they pander by being a force of justice. News Corp's "Rupert Murdochs" champions the future of humanity, and uses this image to enshrine himself in an immortialized lie. It is true, in fact, that journalists and Tumblr bloggers alike cannot see past this veil, but instead fallback to their own idealised mindsets.
News Corporation is the biggest source of misinformation and political slather that scourges humanity since the big bang - in fact, ask a politically liberal and funamentalist Murdoch fan, and you'll probably think that I'm defending him, as "god created the universe" - a triumph of the Murdoch Mass Media Misinformation Machine.
The corporate agendas damn and sensationlize everything that gets in their way, yet, the average reader is comforted by the words "fairness", "voice" and "equality", and hence, cannot see the blantant lie that dwells deep beneath the surface of the title.
The current stance against harassment ironically harasses and damns those who try to throw out debate. Even worse, the idea of "harassment" was blown out of proportions from its origin. Cricitism without constructiveness still construes as cricitism, whether those cricitised like it or not. Even then, constructive critism is ignored by the media, unless it aligns with their own agendas.
Someone subjectively saying that they hate your game does not nessecarily imply harrassment. If your game sucks, it's their opionion that it sucks. There's not relevancy to context, and would only be percieved as harassment if the game DIDN'T suck. (Depression Quest)
Harassment is defined as
1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.
Where the entire issue online is only critism. Only the vocal radicals harrass, and those critised percieved their ego-centric world as being self-important harrassment.
It is this vocal majority that the media sensationalize. As
Fairness and Equality.
Fox media and hannity alludes to hufflepost's recent discussion on gghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or0BMonfrDY Hannityhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNKvF5jOXUk Huffpost, cutting opinion, not allowing Fredrick to be heard (less airtime, and ignored) "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" - Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
It is a law, though, there are people against it:
Section 230 of the CDA has had the unplanned effect of unfairly stifling and injuring US and international business, furthering the sex trade and prostitution, and encouraging bullying and illegal and immoral content on the internet. The law purports to encourage free speech but in reality creates a safe harbor for "unjust, immoral, defamatory, and injurious" speech. It is important to note that while the US Constitution obviously protects free speech, this right is not absolute. No where does the US Constitution protect injurious or illegal speech, such as defamation, or solicitation for illegal or immoral products or services. While Section 230 of the CDA protects free speech and all its benefits, in its current form it also protects illegal, irresponsible, and injurious speech and all its detriments. Where Section 230 protects and promotes free speech it can remain without alteration, however, where the law promotes injurious and illegal speech it must be modified.
"That is an insane statement. Look at the history of google and youtube. uhm. b-before google was going to open themselves up, people. uhm. youtube rather, that was owned by google was going to, allow users to post videos to it. if you look at the legal history of that. they had to spend immense amounts of time figuring out the ?? for the Digital Milleniual Copyright Act.
What Brianna Wu refers to is the DCMA, which has nothing to do with the CDA. Misinformation? It's your choice to make really.
"I think your understanding of the law is laughable"
Radical feminists edit wikipedia articles with a train on agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brianna_Wu&action;=historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka "Hello! I'm Elonka Dunin. I am a writer, game developer, cryptologist, webmistress, public speaker, world-traveller, and appreciator of all kinds of different subcultures. :)"... " and was approved as an administrator in December 2007"
(no research made within the context, this harasser has nothing to do with the community is an "internet troll" for the tech illerate [which you aren't])
Oh but no... Put clickbait on it, News Corporation.
News: a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material.
GamerGate strategy: Do not harass. That isn't the goal, but some SJW's are setting gamers up for their own agenda. Basically, social justice warriors are harassing those within their own leagues to create drama - or some arsehole is harassing for attention.
Journalism lies are real, and should not be looked over.
Random place to dump #GamerGate stuffhttp://techcrunch.com/2014/10/18/gamergate-tactics/ #Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms | TechCrunchhttp://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/ #GamerGate – An Issue With Two Sides
TODO: Add credible sources (news media outlets tends to attack each other). Provide evidence of clickbaiting and sensationlization. Perform first-hand investigations (polls, votes) into the issue [aka, be a journalist, journal a consensus]. Redefine "harassment" with a dictionary. Hardcore APA referencing with insanely credible SCIENTIFIC references not linked to news outlets (since this post is against mass media [in a sense]).