Mediaboss Marketing

(Last Updated On: August 13, 2017)

Inside GamerGate: A Social History of the Gamer Revolt is currently available right now on Amazon for $4.99. The 202-page, non-fiction book recounts specific events that occurred during the height of the #GamerGate saga, told through the lens of author James Desborough.

The gonzo style approach that Desborough took with covering #GamerGate was written to offer an alternative view of the events that unfolded around the explosive hashtag. It also attempts to give readers insight and details on the consumer revolt that the mainstream media and most enthusiast press have refused to cover in an evenhanded or honest fashion.

Desborough recently offered to answer some questions about the recently released e-book and his experiences with #GamerGate that eventually led him to writing about it. He also covers what sort of information both casual readers and hardcore gamers might glean from picking up a copy of the book. You can check out the interview below.

One Angry Gamer: So first of all how involved were you in #GamerGate and how much of it did you participate in?

James Desborough: I was involved since before it was Gamergate. Having previously been a bit of a booster on Depression Quest as a sufferer myself and even a defender of Quinn I was worried about what I was hearing. The only real sources of information were the early IRC channels and theres logs of me visiting one to ask what the hell was going on, and then leaving. That mere presence, by the way, was taken as damning enough to pull an interview on the issue I did for The Escapist, later on down the line.

I was mostly involved on Twitter, then on Youtube, and in discussions, debates and arguments around the issues in the tabletop gaming community. It got quite nasty. I got burned out in 2016 but kept a weather eye on what was going on, even as it died down.

So I was really rather involved, attended a meet up in the UK, battled constantly for what I thought was right, wrote a lot of emails but not for boycotts and took a lot of personal and professional hits on Gamergates behalf.

OAG: When did you decide to start working on the book? How long was it after #GamerGate got underway did you decide to put pen to paper?

James: I was umming and ahhing and discussing the idea with people for some time, going way back to 2016 after Id left, but it was the announcement of Quinns book and my awareness of it that kicked it into high gear and ultimately led me to take the plunge. Well, that and gamedropping (mentioning Gamergate) in all sorts of stupid media articles and trying to link it to the Alt-Right or Trump. It became clear that the other versions of the stories needed to be out there, and from a personal gonzo perspective, not as dry text. We needed something counter to what will inevitably be the lies and misrepresentations in Crash Override, but with a personal touch. I normally prefer to be more dry, measured and academic, but thats not what this needed.

OAG: And on the subject of length how did you decide what events to cover from #GamerGate in order to give it a start and end? Some people still feel as if the event is going on while others feel its concluded. What did you feel was a good end point, so to speak, for covering the event(s)?

James: For me it really did end petering out in 2016 and giving birth to legacy movements such as the ongoing fights over regionalisation and censorship relating to Japanese games. So I planned to historically contextualise it and then cover it from before it was Gamergate, right back to establishing events and contemporaneous context, through to what I considered the end. Then of course The Last Night happened and even since I finished the book we now have relevant things like the GoogleMemo or the reporting on Charlottesville which has included gamedropping which I would have included if I were still working on the book now. At some point you have to type your final full-stop though.

OAG: Three years after #GamerGate started a lot of people still dont know what it is. For people completely out of the loop, will a book like Inside GamerGate be able to catch them up on all the necessary information to get a grasp on what the event was about? Or is it something that more-so outlines the media narratives and ideological slants that helped push the subject into mainstream ever-so-briefly?

James: I hope so. I think the main thing that a lot of people dont understand is how this fits into a much broader historical narrative around fear and loathing of new media that can be traced all the way back to the advent of the printing press, and no, Im not being hyperbolic. For slightly older nerds the shadows of the PMRC, Satanic Panic and Jack Thompson are supremely important in understanding Gamergate but unless youre immersed in nerd history its hard to grok the how and why of the whole thing. The nerd media willfully misrepresented and the mainstream media was criminally lazy. The book, if it can do anything, can at least contextualise that and hopefully humanise Gamergate participants. I dont know how many anti-gamergate people will even bother to read it, but at least its now part of the historical record.

OAG: Some people might be quick to dismiss the book because it doesnt take a listen and believe approach to the subject matter, or because it counteracts the mainstream narrative. For those people who have already read the Wikipedia entry for #GamerGate or decided to get their info from a Gawker/Gizmodo site, how does the book deal with convincing these people that they may be approaching the topic from the wrong perspective?

James: Listen and believe cuts both ways. Listen and believe to me. You dont have to agree with me, but you can at least read it and, as a result, understand my point of view, why I involved myself, why I was outraged and fought so hard and through me maybe you can understand some of the revolt as a whole. The personal touch and the, somewhat controversial, shock opener is intended to try and hit them over the head with that side from the get go. Well see if it works.

OAG: Ultimately, what do you hope to achieve with Inside GamerGate now that its out on the market and available for the general public to consume? Is it about reaching people who may have been misled? Informing people who didnt know #GamerGate existed? Perhaps convincing the media that they really managed to get #GamerGate wrong? Or is it about achieving something else entirely?

James: All of that would be great but I am content that there is, at the very least, now a record from our perspective. I think Brad Glasgows Gamergate book, when it comes out, and mine would make a good complimentary set of books on things. Mine more personal, his more objective.

OAG: If the book manages to really take off, would you consider doing a follow-up or is the one book on #GamerGate enough?

James: Ive been surprised how well it has done. Maybe non-fiction is what I should be writing I wouldnt do another Gamergate book but I could, perhaps, be tempted to write something about the Culture War of the 2010s and how it relates to history. Ive been shocked and appalled at how politically and historically illiterate so many actors in this drama are, both AntiFa and the Alt-Right people especially. Its a fascinating and disappointing point in history. I dont think thered be enough interest in that though, especially written by a somewhat amateur commentator without a pre-existing media platform, and who would publish it? Im too left wing for one set of publishers and too politically incorrect for the other set. Self publishing is exhausting and I prefer to save that for my game design, which is a lot more fun!

One isnt enough, but its enough for me to write.

Huge thanks to James for answering the questions. You can either check out the book on Amazon to learn more, or you can follow James Desboroughs content on YouTube through his Grim Jim channel.

(Artwork courtesy of Kukuruyo)

Original post:
Inside GamerGate Interview: Media Lies, Gamedropping And Culture Wars - One Angry Gamer (blog)

The Google engineer who blamed biological differences for the paucity of women in tech had every right to express his views. And Google likely had every right to fire him, workplace experts and lawyers say.

Special circumstances -- from the country's divisive political climate to Silicon Valley's broader problem with gender equity -- contributed to the outrage and subsequent firing. But the fallout should still serve as a warning to anyone in any industry expressing unpopular, fiery viewpoints.

"Anyone who makes a statement like this and expects to stick around ... is foolish," said David Lewis, CEO of Operations Inc., a human resources consulting firm.

Why He Lost His Job

The engineer, James Damore, wrote a memo criticizing Google for pushing mentoring and diversity programs and for "alienating conservatives." The parts that drew the most outrage made such assertions as women "prefer jobs in social and artistic areas" and have a "lower stress tolerance" and "harder time" leading, while more men "may like coding because it requires systemizing."

Google's code of conduct says workers "are expected to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination." Google's CEO, Sundar Picahi, said Damore violated this code.

Yonatan Zunger, who recently left Google as a senior engineer, wrote in a Medium post that he would have had no choice but to fire Damore had he been his supervisor.

"Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you?" he wrote . "I certainly couldn't assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face."

Though one might argue for a right to free speech, however unpopular, such protections are generally limited to government and other public employees -- and to unionized workers with rights to disciplinary hearings before any firing.

Broader protections are granted to comments about workplace conditions. Damore argues in a federal labor complaint that this applies to his case, but experts disagree.

"By posting that memo, he forfeited his job," said Jennifer Lee Magas, public relations professor at Pace University and a former employment law attorney. "He was fired for his words, but also for being daft enough to post these thoughts on an open workplace forum, where he was sure to be met with backlash and to offend his colleagues -- male and female alike."

Uniquely Google

The fallout comes as Silicon Valley faces a watershed moment over gender and ethnic diversity.

Blamed for years for not hiring enough women and minorities -- and not welcoming them once they are hired -- tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Uber have promised big changes. These have included diversity and mentoring programs and coding classes for groups underrepresented among the companies' technical and leadership staff. Many tech companies also pledge to interview, though not necessarily hire, minority candidates.

These are the sorts of things Damore's memo railed against.

As such, experts say Damore might not have been fired at a company that doesn't have such a clear message on diversity.

In addition, had Damore worked for a smaller, lesser-known company, an internal memo might not have created such a "media storm," said Aimee Delaney, a Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney who represents companies on labor matters.

A Different World

Still, bringing so much public, negative attention would spell trouble for any worker. That's especially so in this age of fast-spreading social media posts, when internal company documents can easily leak and go viral.

It didn't help that this was in the heart of Silicon Valley, where typing fingers are on 24/7 and people rarely disconnect from social media, even on a quiet August weekend. Or that Google is a brand consumers interact with all day -- and want to read about when memos go viral.

Perhaps the biggest lesson is this: Don't be so quick to post your angry thoughts for thousands, then millions, to see.

Michael Schmidt, vice chairman of labor and employment at the Cozen O'Connor law firm, said that while workers might have refrained from such remarks around the physical watercooler, "people treat ... electronic communications much more informally than face-to-face speech."

But the consequences are similar, if not more severe.

Explosive Climate

Initially shared on an internal Google network, the memo leaked out to the public over the weekend, first in bits and pieces and then in its 10-page entirety.

It took a life of its own as outsiders weighed in. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took to Twitter to offer Damore a job. One conservative group, Americans for Limited Government, criticized what it called Google's politically correct culture and left-wing bias. Others called for a Google boycott.

Known for its motto, "don't be evil," Google is broadly seen as a liberal-leaning company, something Damore criticized in his manifesto. Liberals and tech industry leaders came to Google's defense and denounced Damore's claims as baseless and harmful.

"It's fair to say that whatever side of the political aisle you are on, ... we are in a climate where we are dealing with very highly charged and emotional issues," Schmidt said. "And those issues are spilling into the workplace."

Instead of looking for a bright-line test on what is permissible, he said, "both sides need to understand there has to be a sensitivity to the bigger picture," a level of respect and cultural sensitivity across all demographics.

See the original post:
Google Gender Debacle Speaks to Tech Culture Wars - Top Tech News

A A

NEW YORK The Google engineer who blamed biological differences for the paucity of women in tech had every right to express his views. And Google likely had every right to fire him, workplace experts and lawyers say.

Special circumstances from the countrys divisive political climate to Silicon Valleys broader problem with gender equity contributed to the outrage and subsequent firing. But the fallout should still serve as a warning to anyone in any industry expressing unpopular, fiery viewpoints.

Anyone who makes a statement like this and expects to stick around is foolish, said David Lewis, CEO of Operations Inc., a human resources consulting firm.

WHY HE LOST HIS JOB

The engineer, James Damore, wrote a memo criticizing Google for pushing mentoring and diversity programs and for alienating conservatives. The parts that drew the most outrage made such assertions as women prefer jobs in social and artistic areas and have a lower stress tolerance and harder time leading, while more men may like coding because it requires systemizing.

Googles code of conduct says workers are expected to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination. Googles CEO, Sundar Picahi, said Damore violated this code.

Yonatan Zunger, who recently left Google as a senior engineer, wrote in a Medium post that he would have had no choice but to fire Damore had he been his supervisor.

Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? he wrote. I certainly couldnt assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face.

Though one might argue for a right to free speech, however unpopular, such protections are generally limited to government and other public employees and to unionized workers with rights to disciplinary hearings before any firing.

Broader protections are granted to comments about workplace conditions. Damore argues in a federal labor complaint that this applies to his case, but experts disagree.

By posting that memo, he forfeited his job, said Jennifer Lee Magas, public relations professor at Pace University and a former employment law attorney. He was fired for his words, but also for being daft enough to post these thoughts on an open workplace forum, where he was sure to be met with backlash and to offend his colleagues male and female alike.

UNIQUELY GOOGLE

The fallout comes as Silicon Valley faces a watershed moment over gender and ethnic diversity.

Blamed for years for not hiring enough women and minorities and not welcoming them once they are hired tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Uber have promised big changes. These have included diversity and mentoring programs and coding classes for groups underrepresented among the companies technical and leadership staff. Many tech companies also pledge to interview, though not necessarily hire, minority candidates.

These are the sorts of things Damores memo railed against.

As such, experts say Damore might not have been fired at a company that doesnt have such a clear message on diversity.

In addition, had Damore worked for a smaller, lesser-known company, an internal memo might not have created such a media storm, said Aimee Delaney, a Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney who represents companies on labor matters.

A DIFFERENT WORLD

Still, bringing so much public, negative attention would spell trouble for any worker. Thats especially so in this age of fast-spreading social media posts, when internal company documents can easily leak and go viral.

It didnt help that this was in the heart of Silicon Valley, where typing fingers are on 24/7 and people rarely disconnect from social media, even on a quiet August weekend. Or that Google is a brand consumers interact with all day and want to read about when memos go viral.

Perhaps the biggest lesson is this: Dont be so quick to post your angry thoughts for thousands, then millions, to see.

Michael Schmidt, vice chairman of labor and employment at the Cozen OConnor law firm, said that while workers might have refrained from such remarks around the physical watercooler, people treat electronic communications much more informally than face-to-face speech.

But the consequences are similar, if not more severe.

EXPLOSIVE CLIMATE

Initially shared on an internal Google network, the memo leaked out to the public over the weekend, first in bits and pieces and then in its 10-page entirety.

It took a life of its own as outsiders weighed in. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took to Twitter to offer Damore a job. One conservative group, Americans for Limited Government, criticized what it called Googles politically correct culture and left-wing bias. Others called for a Google boycott.

Known for its motto, dont be evil, Google is broadly seen as a liberal-leaning company, something Damore criticized in his manifesto. Liberals and tech industry leaders came to Googles defense and denounced Damores claims as baseless and harmful.

Its fair to say that whatever side of the political aisle you are on we are in a climate where we are dealing with very highly charged and emotional issues, Schmidt said. And those issues are spilling into the workplace.

Original post:
Google debacle speaks to culture wars - The Columbian

WATCH FOX 7 NEWS LIVE

FOX 7 News streams at the following times (all times Central):

Monday - Friday

4:30 a.m. - 10 a.m.

12 p.m. - 12:30 p.m.

5 p.m. - 6 p.m.

9 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Saturday

6 a.m. - 8 a.m.

6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Sunday

6 a.m. - 8 a.m.

5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Schedule subject to change in the event of network sports coverage.

We also stream press conferences and other breaking news coverage from time to time. When we are not in a live newscast, you will see replays of the most recent broadcast.

To enter full screen Mode click the button.

For closed captioning, click on the button while in full screen mode.

Desktop/tablet users: To choose the stream's video quality, click on the button (while in full screen mode) and choose from 432p or 270p.

Please allow time for buffering. If the stream stalls, refresh your browser. Thanks for watching

Go here to read the rest:
Music in the Morning: Culture Wars - Story | KTBC - FOX 7 Austin - FOX 7 Austin

Last week, the Atlanta-based convention Dragon Con released its ballot of nominees for its second-ever Dragon Awards, a wide-ranging list of novels, comics, and games designed to be a true reflection of fan-favorite stories published in the last year. Now, two nominees, Alison Littlewood and John Scalzi, have said theyre withdrawing their names for consideration, over concerns that theyre being used as puppets in a larger fandom culture war.

This years nominees have been widely split between enormously popular authors such as N.K. Jemisin, James S.A. Corey, Scalzi, and some lesser-known authors propelled onto the ballot by blocs of voters looking to score victories for their side in the culture wars.

Unlike the Hugos and Nebulas, the other major speculative fiction awards, the Dragon Awards are open to popular vote. Anyone on the internet can provide a nomination and then vote for finalists. Thats led to concerns that the results will be gamed by the political factions within science-fiction and fantasy fandom, because its happened before. Scalzi has been pointedly outspoken about progressive issues in science-fiction fandom and writing, and has been frequently been attacked and trolled by conservative and alt-right members of the community over his views. One particular faction of these fans calls itself the Rabid Puppies, and has worked to game another award, the Hugo Award, by stacking the nominees with their own set of works.

When Dragon Con announced this years nominee ballot last week, Littlewood found shed earned a nomination for her horror novel The Hidden People. However, she wrote to the organizers and asked to be withdrawn after she learned it was selected by a voting bloc who are attempting, for reasons of their own, to influence the awards outcome. A couple of days later, Scalzi, who earned a nomination for his space opera novel The Collapsing Empire, also announced his intention to withdraw his nomination. Some other finalists are trying to use the book and me as a prop, he wrote, to advance a manufactured us vs. them vote-pumping narrative based on ideology or whatever.

Littlewood asked to be removed, only to be told she couldnt withdraw

Littlewood says she was informed that she wouldnt be allowed to withdraw her nomination. Pat Henry, the conventions president and founder, wrote to her and said he was refusing to remove her name from the ballot, and that while the convention was aware outside groups were manipulating the results, we believe that as we add voters, they will become irrelevant in the our awards.

When asked about their refusal to remove authors, Henry explained in a statement to The Verge that one of the goals was to provide a long list of recently released reading materials for fans, and that when an author any author asks to withdraw from the ballot, then the reading list becomes less. Its less broad, less balanced, and less about the fans. In 2016, Scalzi was nominated for his novel The End of All Things, and announced he would withdraw his nomination last year, and his wish to be removed wasnt honored. Henry also says Dragon Con wont release the raw voting figures for this years convention, in an effort to prevent vote-packing.

While this tactic does result in a long list of recommended books and games for fans and attendees, it potentially puts a number of authors into an untenable position of being associated with a group they vehemently disagree with, or becoming proxies for voters to vote against. Because the awards organizers arent permitting nominees to remove themselves, authors have no recourse or agency in the situation.

In an email to The Verge, Littlewood explained that she was never contacted by Rabid Puppy founder Theodore Beale (who goes by the name Vox Day online), who put her on his slate. She didnt know shed been nominated until after the fact. I had heard [about] the controversy around the Hugos and the Rabid Puppies, she explained. I have no wish to benefit from any interference in the awards and do not wish to be associated with the Puppies, so I wrote to the organizers with a polite request to withdraw. While she doesnt have access to the numbers that put her on the ballot, she certainly gained the impression that undue influence was at play.

Its unusual for speculative-fiction nominees to not be informed about their pending nomination, which makes this situation even more awkward. Other genre awards, such as the Hugo and Nebulas, notify authors in advance before nominations are published, to give them the opportunity to bow out for a range of reasons. Some might not feel a given story deserves to be nominated, like when Ted Chiang withdrew his story Liking What You See: A Documentary from the Hugos in 2003. Others might not want to be associated with a political faction, such as Marko Kloos, who learned his novel was put on the Hugo ballot by a Rabid Puppy slate. A Dragon Con spokesperson explained that voting began with the release of the nominations, which means that the authors didnt have an opportunity to exit before the ballot was finalized.

If the Dragon Awards wants to prevent its award from being used, allowing authors to remove themselves is an essential step

While Dragon Con claims to have taken steps to contend with ballot-stuffing, not allowing creators to remove themselves from consideration seems like a counterintuitive step. While the convention organizers say theyre trying to avoid the drama, this seems like a step designed to protect the reputation of the fledgling awards, rather than that of the authors it claims are the genres favorites.

All of this speaks to a larger issue, which the Hugos, Nebulas, Dragons, and many other awards seem to be facing: rather than celebrations of the best the genre has to offer, theyre pushed into becoming battlegrounds for hostile factions that wish to plant a flag on a particular bit of popular culture. Fans have already begun working on ways to change how voting works for The Hugo Awards to avoid these issues. If the organizers behind the Dragon Awards truly want their award to reflect the genres fans, they will need to take some of the authors concerns into consideration.

Meanwhile, voting for the awards has opened, and the winners will be announced at Dragon Con on September 3rd.

Update August 10th, 10:30AM ET: Alison Littlewood and John Scalzi have each informed The Verge that the awards organizers have since been in touch with them to address their concerns, and they will now be able to withdraw if they so wish. Littlewood told The Verge she will withdraw her name from the ballot (although at present, her name still appears on the list of nominees), while Scalzi issued the following statement:

After I contacted the Dragon Award administrators regarding my intention to withdraw, the administrators got back to me and asked if I would consider staying on the ballot. They were hearing the community's feedback and criticism and were acting on it. Their decision to honor Ms. Littlewood's request to withdraw is a first example of what I see as their willingness to listen and learn, and is an action I applaud. To honor that action, and in sincere appreciation of the readers and fans who placed me on the Dragon Awards finalist list, I have agreed to remain on the ballot this year. I encourage everyone to vote for their own favorite works on the Dragon Awards finalist list.

DragonCon has issued a statement of its own, saying that it will remove Ms. Littlewoods book from the 2017 Dragon Awards ballot and re-issue ballots to those people who voted for her book. We believe that fans who voted for The Hidden People should have a second chance to vote for a favorite horror work. No new title will be added to the ballot.

Original post:
Two science-fiction authors say they're being used as proxies in a ... - The Verge