- So, after being called a shill and having baseless accusations made by a few relatively new accounts I decided to make a list so that I didn't have to repost the same arguments for each new person who gets told "Force is a shill, Force is a shill!"
- Let's look at the facts, by the most common accusations:
- 1. "You're going to use GG to make money/fame! You just want GG's cash/personal attention!"
- A. I have pledged to earn a $0 profit from GamerGate.
- B. I will never promote any of my personal non-GG work using GamerGate.
- C. I already make more than enough money and have no interest in the minimal income I would earn by trying to profit from GG.
- D. If I did receive any money from GG, I would donate it back to the cause, like HOTWHEELS.
- E. I've already pledged over $20,000 of my own money to GG including sponsors and charities ($15,000 on a BMW, $3,500+ on charity and $1,500+ on games).
- F. That's before you count the fact that a normal billing hour for me is worth $20-$150 depending upon my activity (average is about $50), and I've dropped at least 30 hours a week into GG since October. Let's call it 13 weeks. 30 x 13 is 390 x $50, that's $19,500. So I've pledged about another $20k of my own work hours (that I could've used to turn a profit) to GamerGate. For those who ask "how is your job related to GG" - I work in IT and I've contributed knowledge about SEO, SMM, Security and a lot of other things to GG.
- G. I already had a significant following before GamerGate and I am assuredly not here to become "E famous" which is not fun or exciting.
- H. I'm also capable of building a following with or without GamerGate. This does NOT mean that I don't value my GG supporters immensely, it just means that I'm not preying on GG for followers.
- 2. "But so and so said you were a shill"
- A. The vast majority of accusations come from people I've been critical of in the past. Ironically, these are people who are exceptionally critical of others, who freak out when they are questioned, despite the fact that GamerGate is almost entirely about being critical of everything and everyone.
- B. And where do they get the supposed shill information from? The mainstream media's interpretation of me. Literally, the same people that are being audited right now - Gawker and other mainstream news sources, as well as anti-GamerGate bloggers who feed the mainstream media narratives.
- C. Instead of drawing the obvious conclusion (that the same people that lied about me, also lied about GamerGate, and thus I have a vested interest in being here because it's LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME BATTLE WITH THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE), some of the people making the accusations swallow the mainstream media narrative whole.
- D. I literally fought against Gawker Media via Jezebel, the least ethical publication in their entire lineup who regularly sources unvetted xojane articles like they were peer-reviewed journals.
- E. There's a lot of envy. It's not a nice thing to say but since people are starting up the 'bot followers' accusation I think it's time to say it flat out - there are people who are personally envious of the fact that I'm gaining Twitter followers and that's petty.
- 3. "You're creating a council/you're trying to lead GamerGate/you're trying to dominate the narrative"
- A. This largely comes from confusion and misunderstanding of my idea that a leaderless movement likewise has a leaderless council. The scientific principle behind this is the herd mentality/groupthink in which the voices with the highest contribution as measured by consensus dictate the overall direction of the group.
- B. I am not creating a council.
- C. Nor do I want a council.
- D. Nor have I suggested that a specific, organized council of selected members would, or can give orders to GamerGate.
- E. But, a leaderless, herd mentality "council" (note the quotation marks) does govern GamerGate. They do not and cannot give direct orders. No one can do that. Instead, they lead by example.
- F. I do not decide who is on that council, nor does anyone else decide about the success or failure of others. They only decide their own individual success or failure. The ability of people to say "there's no council" is a sign that they are on it, via the value of their opinion (a mark of merit).
- G. My statements about the top contributors governing the direction of GamerGate are meant to be motivational to those who are putting in tens of thousands of dollars worth of time/money/effort/life into GamerGate and NOT meant to be insulting to those who are contributing relatively less
- H. I'm not in support of Marxism or Communism. I'm a Capitalist and I believe people should make as much money as the market will allow. My primary opposition in terms of my views on "leadership" comes from Marxists, as my philosophy on rule and meritocracy comes from Orwellian literature. I've pledged not to take profit from a nonprofit (GamerGate) and my pledge stands firm, but meritocracy is STILL the ruling mechanism for nonprofit organizations. So no, those who contribute less are not entitled to the same amount as those who contribute more. If you want more, contribute more. That's meant to be ENCOURAGEMENT, not insult.
- I. "What does contribution mean?" Groups opposed to GamerGate (including the International Game Developers Association*, the E-Sports League*, the National Center for Women in Technology*, the CyberSmile Foundation*, the Feminist Frequency*, and Rainbow PUSH*) just got $300 million from Intel. Logically, GamerGate needs $300 million to fight $300 million. This is one example, though. Look at anything the opposition has (in terms of success, money, etc.) and recognize that duplicating or surpassing any of it would be beneficial to GG.
- J. I did say that I would co-opt GG if I could. I would officially establish GG as a nonprofit. I have no problems with other people doing this as well provided that GG is listened to.
- K. But even if I did that, it wouldn't be actually 'co-opting' GG, it would just be a nonprofit run by individuals involved with/in GG.
- 4. "But you run an evil illegal stolen nudes Revenge Porn website, and you failed!"
- A. This, again, is a mainstream media narrative, largely spurred by misconceptions about the field of internet pornography.
- B. The website has been closed down for over 2 years now.
- C. The website I ran was the equivalent of 4chan or 8chan, governed by 47 USC 230, which allows users to post information freely, and allows administrators to screen postings without being liable for content posted by users.
- D. Thus, I was not responsible for the content being posted on my website.
- E. The majority of the content on the website was self-posted, self-taken pictures which were already publicly posted to other websites like Tumblr by the people pictured within it.
- F. No less than 30% of the content was sent to me from ex-porn site owners with full licensure and model releases for the people pictured.
- G. The website was fully legal and 47 USC 230 plus 18 USC 2256 compliant.
- H. "Revenge Porn" is a fictional narrative like "Rape Culture" which creates a lot of false pretenses, including perpetuating the 'sweet, innocent girlfriend' stereotype that is prominent in Rape Culture narratives, like the Duke Lacrosse case in which the perpetrator was alleged to be a sweet, innocent girl but was actually a drug-addicted, mentally ill sex worker who is now serving hard time for Second Degree Murder (Google: Crystal Mangum).
- I. Common to this narrative is the false idea that the person spreading the photos is an ex-boyfriend or a phone hacker/thief.
- J. Hacked photos are explicitly prohibited by law and users had to sign a full waiver in order to submit photos which, amongst other things, indicated that they did not hack/steal them, were not submitting them out of malice or ill interest, and were entirely legally liable for their own posting(s).
- K. In turn, the only photos which were posted on our website were photos which were explicitly transmitted and made public by the people pictured within those photos and they were never used for malicious purposes.
- L. We also made it a point to report anyone who tried to send underage photos, or harass/stalk/intimidate anyone who was pictured on our website, to local, state and federal authorities. This resulted in several arrests - so IAD actually did some things which, in scope, were GOOD.
- M. There were zero deaths, zero assaults and zero damage done as a result of carefully controlled and crafted policies on IAD.
- N. In fact, no less than 200 of the women pictured, and at least 50 of the men pictured were offered modeling contracts ranging as high as $100,000 per year as a result of exposure generated by publicity from IAD. Also GOOD.
- O. The ratio of women to men pictured on the website was 1.03 women for every .97 men. So, the website was not 'anti-woman' as was suggested in the press.
- P. Men generally did not have a faux sense of outrage about appearing on the website. A lot of them were actually excited about it. Have you noticed a trend? That's right, it's the third wave feminist "patriarchy!" crowd that was up in arms about "Revenge Porn". Why can't women be excited to be seen naked instead of disgusted? Seems like privilege to me. When a total stranger sees me naked, I don't feel upset about it at all. Maybe kinda nervous if it's someone I've met before, but generally not.
- Q. Our website promoted positive body image. No one was shamed for being of a different body type, different race, gender, color, etc. We had full and equal representation from every gender, race, origin, country, etc. in the world.
- R. We actually received and posted self-submitted nudes from Hong Kong nationals whose government did not allow them to post their own nudes (illegal in People's Republic of China) and posted them to slight the Chinese government. This resulted in a measured, confirmed attack on our cloud by PLA Unit 61398, which an independent security team confirmed upon my behalf was the result of Chinese military IPs rather than open proxies. (This was amazing. We literally liberated people from Chinese government censorship with the PRC threatening to torture and kill them for nudes).
- S. "You failed!" At one point in time the website was top 5 by traffic in over 160 countries. We made primetime television news in Argentina, Brazil, etc. We had measured top 1000 world traffic on Alexa during the height of our popularity. For a good comparison, check out Alexa's top 1000 websites by world ranking and you'll see that IAD was SERIOUS.
- There were entire countries talking about Is Anybody Down?.
- T. Is Anybody Down? is the correct spelling of the website name.
- U. You won't read most of this about our website because the mainstream media was so hung up on their 'it exploits women' narrative, the same narrative they use to shame porn and sex work to this very day despite women regularly telling them how full of it they are.
- V. I closed the website down because I was personally conflicted (moral concerns, and the fact that 99% of the time I hated running the thing) and I wanted to use my skills to do something which I consider to be productive and positive in society, and that is why I joined GamerGate.
- Closing: Thank you if you read all of this. It explains what actually happened with IAD and my current role in GG.
- With my hand on the Bible and under penalty of perjury, I swear that everything enclosed is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Force - Not a shill
ForcePastes Jan 8th, 2015 (edited) 2,207 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
RAW Paste Data