Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in here...
Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in here...
Political trolls are going to be in for a rude awakening if they think they can Trump their way through entrenched congressional districts, especially if they aren't wealthy celebrities like he is.
Wu made a thread for personal criticism in the hopes that it would be contained there. When this didn't do anything and instead resulted in people accusing her of false-flagging she didn't stop and explain but did the same dumb thing she always does: erase everything and pretend it never happened.
She is running in a solid blue district. Her only relevant battle is against the long-term Democrat incumbent she will need to primary against. On the off chance that she wins this battle (due to extremely low mid-term primary turn-out - she's even telling her supporters she can win with as few as 4000 votes, although that's completely unrealistic) I can just about guarantee that she will be a weaker than usual opponent to whatever Republican runs in the general.
Supported Sanders? Please.
Even if GamerGate were originally about a lack of integrity in the gaming press (and yes, I do believe there were probably some shenanigans at Kotaku), the message was completely overshadowed by a very real phenomenon, which is the incredible amount of verbal abuse women tend to receive online. No, it's not exclusive to them, but they seem to get a disproportional amount of vitriol. And frankly, compared to that, even as a gamer, that seems a lot more important than the original story.
Jack Thompson was mentioned. Thompson received an incredible amount of online attacks and threats, to the extent that he prosecuted against death threats from one 16 year old.
This was reported lightly in the gaming media at the time, and with a very neutral tone. Same as instances of game developers getting death threats from unhinged people who were set off by something. This didn't blow up in the media at the time.
If women in gaming get more threats and harassment for being women in gaming, completely divorced from how publicized they've become (which is absolutely going to amplify that effect) I haven't seen solid research to demonstrate it. What I have seen is when Brianna Wu received a string of threats on her twitter (which also including threatening to castrate and kill her husband, something I've rarely seen reported) many outlets reported it, some within minutes, and by the next day she was doing interviews with major organizations. To say that the quantity and tone of coverage overshadowed that given to Thompson is an understatement.
And I can't even say this is all due to Wu's circumstances and the topicality of the story vs Wu's connections. I find it a little odd that she's able to also get this level of media coverage in announcing a bid to primary a Democratic congressman before he's even formally entered his next term (for anyone wondering, Wu has not so subtly revealed she'll be running against Stephen Lynch). One of the major hooks is that this is game developer who is supposed to have a higher familiarity with tech, but when it came to her actual game's recent PC release I can't find a single outlet covering it, let alone reviewing it.
Twitter doesn't care about hate speech, it only cares about harassment, incitement and threats. Like the law in the US does.
That's not what the article says.
"Separately, reporting hateful conduct will also help Twitter better process reports from bystanders, alleviating the burden on the person being subjected to the abuse, Harvey said.
Second, Twitter has retrained support teams, offering sessions that teach the cultural and historical context to help moderators recognize hate speech, and has put in place an ongoing program to refresh employees on abuse and update them on new forms of it, Harvey said."
If they didn't care about policing hate speech in the past they sure will now.
In what scenario would the cities on the coast be the only ones that matter?
Look at New Hampshire. It's worth a measly 4 electoral votes, only 0.74% of the electoral college, and still a fairly small amount of the total swing votes reasonably considered to be in play. And yet we saw quite a lot of campaigning and canvassing going on there because it was a very competitive state in a very competitive race (which most presidential races these day are) and at that point every bit that could be secured mattered.
In this election the popular vote was very close, off by only around 1%. Even the counties that are the deepest shades of red or blue contain some often significant fraction of people who could be convinced to vote the other direction. This is especially true in the modern era where people are easily exposed to information well beyond their home town. If one candidate managed to successfully gain votes among this minority over the other they could have very realistically turned the election. This is why a lot of real minority blocs are important to campaigns today; the majority is not considered "enough." Even if they currently only matter if they're in swing states and can tip the election.
The largest cities would have the biggest low hanging fruit, but the campaigns will reach diminishing returns where they feel like they can cause more of a shift in preference and turnout in increasingly less populated areas. Especially if they can reach large swaths of them at a time by appealing to their more unifying values.
This is very different from the winner-takes-all method employed in most states, where the people who voted for the non-majority party literally contribute nothing to the outcome, and in the large number of states that are very entrenched and slowly change affiliation they can know ahead of time that their vote is a waste. Appealing to the minority voters in those states is a waste of time.
"Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all...." -- Thomas J. Kopp