The emails reportedly document Turkey's use of pro-government trolls on Twitter -- though ironically, it's Twitter that's now being used to document the censorship.
According to a Turkish journalist, Twitter is also helping out with the censorship:
At the request of Turkey, Twitter decided to block my Turkish account within Turkey.
I'm not the only journalist whose Twitter feed is restricted in Turkey. The process is simple: Turkey asks, Twitter shuts down.
And lists a few more who have been banned.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless
If anything, they're complaining that the police didn't investigate--because they were never called--yet headlines were written as if there'd been a trial with a guilty verdict.
Are you really surprised that the "crowd" complains when they see potentially life-ruining sexual assault allegations handed over to a private company hired by Tor to do a secret investigation, instead of the justice system?
No. Because GamerGhazi is built on a tissue of lies. And worse, they paid virtually no attention to this particular scandal, adding even more proof that it was mostly about the gaters' misogyny.
Look at you, still clinging desperately to the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative and trying to ignore what GG accomplished.
Gamergate campaigned to inform the FTC of this kind of unethical behavior, and the FTC got involved as far back as December 2014 in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And the FTC also updated their disclosure guidelines several times, including last summer (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?):
The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:
Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.
"Is "affiliate link" by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a "buy now" button?"
Consumers might not understand that "affiliate link" means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a "buy now" button would not be adequate
Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?
Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.
The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.
If you read further, there is specific language about requiring Let's-Players to disclose as well. And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.
P.P.S. Yes, Gamergate paid plenty of attention to this scandal. You did know that it was leaked by TotalBiscuit (during a time period when anti-GG was relentlessly shitting on him), right?
And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)
OK, try this. Go discuss review embargos and payola and other AAA corruption on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see how many censor the discussion, much less ban your account.
Now go back to the same sites and try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and ban hammerage and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that Gerstmann's Kane&Lynch firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's long-running cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. "It's about misogyny and harassment!" is the real tired cliche.
One fine point to remember is that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after the initial journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.
Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) smear campaign on August 28, 2014 (a.k.a. "Gamers Are Dead" day). None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with other corruption stories, so there's nothing for Gamergate to do about them. They have a chance at getting proper coverage anyway.
In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of (for example) AAA review embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then (and only then) maybe another Gamergate-type customer revolt will be needed.
You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.