DeepFreeze.it problems?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Diablo1099:

RetardedChimp:
Someone here has to be able to break down what Milo is actually saying in his GG pieces instead of only attacking his character, right?

As IceForce has pointed out, he's kinda exactly the sort of thing that GG is against.
It's a bit like a politician who runs on family values, demanding people respect marriage and the nuclear family while decrying LGBT rights for demeaning his marriage or something like that.
Then goes off and has public relations with a gay hooker but carries on like normal as if nothing happened. (Note: Metaphor applies only to Milo)

Even if he makes some decent points that his followers agree with, he's still spitting in their faces and ultimately harming their cause as a result by not practicing the points he is claiming to be spearheading.

Hell, the guy basically went on Airplay and said that GG IS about chasing SJWs as much as ethics and people who think otherwise are wrong.

Well he's not the only one. Whenever the SJW issue is brought the standard response is that they're the ones who make up the unethical journalists. My issue with that is that GG would still go after unethical journalists on either side if it was about ethics. But it isn't, it's about shutting up SJWs under the guise of ethics while behaving like SJWs.

Deep Freeze would likely do well to just trash and cutout the whole clickbate group. It makes the page feel petty.

IceForce:

Netscape:

Nielas:
Under the same standard every pro-GG writer should also be listed on that site tagged for collusion. They should probably also be tagged for sensationalism. My main issue with Deepfreeze is that it is very broad when it comes to people it does not like but does not seem to apply the same loose standards to pro-GG people.

Out of curiosity, which "pro-GG" games journalist belongs on that list?

Milo Yiannopoulos for one.

Many of the journalists listed on DeepFreeze are listed there because they wrote a "sensationalist" or "scandalmongering" article.

So, that being the case, why is Milo Yiannopoulos not on there? After all, he wrote this:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/08/14/players-as-young-as-12-and-13-are-being-raped-by-dorky-weirdos-on-grand-theft-auto/

Many of the articles that DeepFreeze decries and criticises as "sensationalist" or "scandalmongering" are really fucking tame compared to the above article.

I agree that Milo is pretty pathetic, but he isn't exactly a games journalist?

Spot1990:
snip

I just sent what I believe to be a very polite email to the owner of DF with all this stuff in it, so we'll see what he says. Out of curiosity, I also asked if anyone has ever tried to submit articles on Milo in the past. We'll see if he responds.

Netscape:
I agree that Milo is pretty pathetic, but he isn't exactly a games journalist?

Well, considering his position in GG, it's still comes to stand that they have a rather unethical journalist as their figurehead in a movement against unethical journalists.
Even if his focus isn't gaming (of his which his disdain of IceForce has pointed out in his posts on this forum in great detail), the fact is that he often seems to get a pass for issues that landed others on DeepFreeze, if not outright ire from the entire GG community.

Click the link in IceForce's post and just imagine if Anita wrote that, heads would roll, but because it's Milo...

Ouroboros:
Noooo one is really replying to the points @Spot1990 outlined, and they seem like good points. I didn't know about any of that, since I would rather eat donkey dick than read Breitbart unprompted.

Unfortunately I ran out of donkey dick, and in this economy god knows when I'll get more.

Netscape:

I agree that Milo is pretty pathetic, but he isn't exactly a games journalist?

Nielas only said pro-GG writers which Milo is certainly one of. You added in the "games" qualifier. Regardless it is still pretty suspect that a movement about ethical journalism is on side with an unethical journalist. There's also the examples Exley gave over at TechRaptor and Gamesnosh.

Is anybody here actually going to address the serious double standard where a movement supposedly fighting for ethical journalism and totally not politics is okay with unethical journalism as long as the writer's politics are in line with the movement? Literally not one person has even attempted to address the documented ethical failings of pro-GG journalists. It's honestly getting a bit silly at this point.

IceForce:

YOU'RE the one who's deflecting; not just deflecting, but derailing too.

In fact, if the boot was on the other foot, and *I* was the one making posts like you've made in this thread, I would be instantly smothered under an avalanche of "DERAILING!" accusations.

"No you!"

IceForce:

RetardedChimp:
fact check the Nyberg and Wu articles already.

As has been already explained, doing this would be a completely pointless waste of time.

Because they are factually correct. That is my point. You and others are trying your damnedest to get away from it, but you can't.

Are they factually correct or not?

IceForce:
But I'll explain again for those who are confused.

There you go deflecting again.

The rest of your post is simply fallacies and ad-homs. Not interested.

Netscape:

IceForce:

Netscape:

Out of curiosity, which "pro-GG" games journalist belongs on that list?

Milo Yiannopoulos for one.

Many of the journalists listed on DeepFreeze are listed there because they wrote a "sensationalist" or "scandalmongering" article.

So, that being the case, why is Milo Yiannopoulos not on there? After all, he wrote this:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/08/14/players-as-young-as-12-and-13-are-being-raped-by-dorky-weirdos-on-grand-theft-auto/

Many of the articles that DeepFreeze decries and criticises as "sensationalist" or "scandalmongering" are really fucking tame compared to the above article.

I agree that Milo is pretty pathetic, but he isn't exactly a games journalist?

DeepFreeze had no issue taking non-gaming journalists, such as Sam Biddle, Mike Pearl, or Patrick O'Rourke, to task for alleged ethical failings. So I don't see why Yiannopoulos should be any different, especially when he's written numerous articles about gaming and GamerGate. The fact that he's not a games journalist by title and doesn't review games should be irrelevant.

RetardedChimp:

Because they are factually correct. That is my point. You and others are trying your damnedest to get away from it, but you can't.

Are they factually correct or not?

No one has claimed they're not. The issue is you're totally willing to ignore every unethical thing Milo has done and just keep harping on about these articles. Well then fine. Not everything aGG journalists have done is unethical, they have also written factually correct articles from time to time, so by the same standard they're as innocent as Milo. Glad we got that sorted.

Diablo1099:
As IceForce has pointed out, he's kinda exactly the sort of thing that GG is against.

Sorry, anytime IceForce tries to assert what GG 'is about', it's usually safe to assume the opposite of whatever he said is true.

Diablo1099:
It's a bit like a politician who runs on family values, demanding people respect marriage and the nuclear family while decrying LGBT rights for demeaning his marriage or something like that.
Then goes off and has public relations with a gay hooker but carries on like normal as if nothing happened. (Note: Metaphor applies only to Milo)

I'm not sure how that applies at all. I don't care what Milo does outside of GG. He's a hardcore conservative, I disagree with most of political points of view, it doesn't matter to me because until he f*cks up when it pertains to GG it's irrelevant.

Diablo1099:
Even if he makes some decent points that his followers agree with, he's still spitting in their faces and ultimately harming their cause as a result by not practicing the points he is claiming to be spearheading.

Disagree.

He's one of the only jounralists who is consistently ethical when it comes to GG coverage, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what he eats or what he does in his free time, and I don't care what he does outside of GG related issues. His journalism when it comes to GG is all I care about.

Diablo1099:
Hell, the guy basically went on Airplay and said that GG IS about chasing SJWs as much as ethics and people who think otherwise are wrong.

The nice thing about GG is that people don't have to agree on every single thing. This isn't a SJW mob where everyone has to adhere to the approved group-think about every single thing or be shamed mercilessly.

That's why it's somewhat humorous to see people bringing up all these unrelated things and saying 'see! look what he did here!' like it's supposed to matter to me (or most of GG) in the least. What Milo does outside of GG is not my burden.

RetardedChimp:

Diablo1099:
As IceForce has pointed out, he's kinda exactly the sort of thing that GG is against.

Sorry, anytime IceForce tries to assert what GG 'is about', it's usually safe to assume the opposite of whatever he said is true.

Diablo1099:
It's a bit like a politician who runs on family values, demanding people respect marriage and the nuclear family while decrying LGBT rights for demeaning his marriage or something like that.
Then goes off and has public relations with a gay hooker but carries on like normal as if nothing happened. (Note: Metaphor applies only to Milo)

I'm not sure how that applies at all. I don't care what Milo does outside of GG. He's a hardcore conservative, I disagree with most of political points of view, it doesn't matter to me because until he f*cks up when it pertains to GG it's irrelevant.

Diablo1099:
Even if he makes some decent points that his followers agree with, he's still spitting in their faces and ultimately harming their cause as a result by not practicing the points he is claiming to be spearheading.

Disagree.

He's one of the only jounralists who is consistently ethical when it comes to GG coverage, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what he eats or what he does in his free time, and I don't care what he does outside of GG related issues. His journalism when it comes to GG is all I care about.

Diablo1099:
Hell, the guy basically went on Airplay and said that GG IS about chasing SJWs as much as ethics and people who think otherwise are wrong.

The nice thing about GG is that people don't have to agree on every single thing. This isn't a SJW mob where everyone has to adhere to the approved group-think about every single thing or be shamed mercilessly.

That's why it's somewhat humorous to see people bringing up all these unrelated things and saying 'see! look what he did here!' like it's supposed to matter to me (or most of GG) in the least. What Milo does outside of GG is not my burden.

So GG started to fight for ethical journalism but only cares about ethical coverage of GG itself... Bit circular isn't it?

also just so we're clear, Iceforce said Milo is exactly the thing GG is against (ie unethical journalist). But this is apparently incorrect? So GG isn't against unethical journalists?

Spot1990:
No one has claimed they're not.

I'de like certain people to openly state they ARE factual. Just once, it's a rather simple thing that for some reason is avoided at all costs.

Can you break the chain, Spot? Can you state Milo's articles about Nyberg and Wu are factual?

Spot1990:
The issue is you're totally willing to ignore every unethical thing Milo has done and just keep harping on about these articles. Well then fine. Not everything aGG journalists have done is unethical, they have also written factually correct articles from time to time, so by the same standard they're as innocent as Milo. Glad we got that sorted.

If they aren't writing factually correct articles about GG then I don't really care what else they have done.

Why is this hard for people? WHEN DISCUSSING GG, I DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT THESE PEOPLE DO OUTSIDE OF GG. Someone could be a pedophile like Nyberg, that makes them a bad person, but on it's own it doesn't invalidate/validate what they say when it comes to GG.

Based on what I've been reading and the general attitude, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the guy emails me back and says nobody has ever tried submitting anything on Milo. Anti-GGers claim the site is biased as fuck (which it is), but it won't be any less biased if you don't make your own submissions. It took me all but 5 minutes to copy what Spot1990 wrote into an email and send it to the owner of DF. If the guy writes me back and says that "Those articles are bullshit and Milo doesn't belong on my site you piece of shit", well, we know where DF stands and we can say for certain they don't strive for objectivity like they claim to. If he doesn't write me back at all, we can deduct something from that too. If, however, he does write me back, says thanks, and decides to add Milo to the site, what does that say? That people have been so busy talking about how biased and one-sided DF is to actually care enough to make it less biased. Considering how this whole controversy has played out thus far, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Spot1990:
So GG started to fight for ethical journalism but only cares about ethical coverage of GG itself... Bit circular isn't it?

First, stop acting like I'm the be-all-end-all for GG opinions.

Second, pretty sure GG started to fight for ethical GAMES journalism more than anything else. You can try and stretch GG thin and have them overstep by saying they must go after everything else under the sun, but that's not really something you have the power to do.

LOLITRON:
Based on what I've been reading and the general attitude, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the guy emails me back and says nobody has ever tried submitting anything on Milo. Anti-GGers claim the site is biased as fuck (which it is), but it won't be any less biased if you don't make your own submissions.

This is something that I routinely brought up during the first 'Deepfreeze is bad!' discussions here. No one here was willing to even attempt to submit examples of unethical journalism from 'proGG' journalists, they were only interested in complaining for the sake of complaining.

Personally, I think deepfreeze could be a community resource, some people just see it as pro-GG so it is forever blackballed or whatever.

RetardedChimp:

Spot1990:
No one has claimed they're not.

I'de like certain people to openly state they ARE factual. Just once, it's a rather simple thing that for some reason is avoided at all costs.

Can you break the chain, Spot? Can you state Milo's articles about Nyberg and Wu are factual?

as far as I know they are. Yes. Now can you do the same and admit Milo is an unethical journalist? You keep trying to make it seem like I'm against him for his politics which isn't the case, can you admit that as a journalist he has commited some severe ethical breaches? Can you also admit that "Lying Greedy Promiscuous Feminist Bullies are Tearing the Videogame Industry apart" is clickbait/sensationalism?

Why is this hard for people? WHEN DISCUSSING GG, I DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT THESE PEOPLE DO OUTSIDE OF GG. Someone could be a pedophile like Nyberg, that makes them a bad person, but on it's own it doesn't invalidate/validate what they say when it comes to GG.

again, if GG is about fighting unethical journalists but only cares about unethical coverage of GG itself wouldn't just never starting GG in the first place have avoided all that? Either GG cares about more than coverage of GG or it's based entirely on circular logic.

Spot1990:

as far as I know they are. Yes.

Thank you. I hope you are disgusted as I am about aGG defending a pedophile.

Why do you keep bringing up Milo's non GG related coverage like it matters to me though? As stated before, I don't really care about Milo in any capacity other than his GG related things. My opinion on him in any other aspect is the same as if he never got involved in GG at all, IE I don't have a strong opinion either way because it doesn't really matter to me.

Spot1990:
again, if GG is about fighting unethical journalists but only cares about unethical coverage of GG itself wouldn't just never starting GG in the first place have avoided all that? Either GG cares about more than coverage of GG or it's based entirely on circular logic.

Again, stop implying I speak for the entirety of GG.

I don't accept your assertion that GG is about fighting unethical journalists. As far as I can tell, it's ALWAYS primarily been about fighting unethical GAMES journalism. It branches out here and there to fix other problems, but that is just icing on the proverbial cake, not the cake itself.

That's why when people 'get mad' about GG not focusing on other things it shows they have a lack of understanding about the topic.

RetardedChimp:
Sorry, anytime IceForce tries to assert what GG 'is about', it's usually safe to assume the opposite of whatever he said is true.

Hey, you were the guys who said it was about Ethics, not IceForce. IceForce was just pointing out that Milo is unethical by GG Standards and therfore, what GG is supposed to be fighting.

RetardedChimp:
I'm not sure how that applies at all. I don't care what Milo does outside of GG. He's a hardcore conservative, I disagree with most of political points of view, it doesn't matter to me because until he f*cks up when it pertains to GG it's irrelevant.

It's relevant as, in the example I use, he's the one with power to make the laws and he's willing to operate at a double standard, a harder one for people who disagree with him and a much more lax one for stuff he agrees with and even then, he doesn't hold himself to that same standard.

It's relevant to GG because if he's being an unethical prick while in the same breath calling for better ethics on behalf of GG, it's going to undermine GG.
Like a politician who calls for stricter laws against drugs before doing lines in his office.

RetardedChimp:
Disagree.

He's one of the only jounralists who is consistently ethical when it comes to GG coverage, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what he eats or what he does in his free time, and I don't care what he does outside of GG related issues. His journalism when it comes to GG is all I care about.

So he could basically be the most unethical journalist on the web so long as he agrees with GG then?
Again, we bring this up because his ethical failings are counter-productive to what GG aspires and the fact that there is a double standard for Pro-GG and Anti-GG is one of the reasons why GG get so much shit.

RetardedChimp:
The nice thing about GG is that people don't have to agree on every single thing. This isn't a SJW mob where everyone has to adhere to the approved group-think about every single thing or be shamed mercilessly.

That's why it's somewhat humorous to see people bringing up all these unrelated things and saying 'see! look what he did here!' like it's supposed to matter to me (or most of GG) in the least. What Milo does outside of GG is not my burden.

Well, considering that a lot of the things he goes do outside of GG are the same things that other internet personalities have been crucified for elsewhere.

Again, that piece on GTAO and how it's users are "Beta Males" and "No Reasonable Adult would play this game".
I mean, if you want to admit there is a double standard and you don't care about Milo's repeated ethical failings outside of GG, that's alright, just expect to be called out on it when you try to hold other journalists and personalities to the same standard.

RetardedChimp:

Spot1990:

as far as I know they are. Yes.

Thank you.

Why do you keep bringing up Milo's non GG related coverage like it matters to me though? As stated before, I don't really care about Milo in any capacity other than his GG related things. My opinion on him in any other aspect is the same as if he never got involved in GG at all, IE I don't have a strong opinion either way because it doesn't really matter to me.

So you won't even admit he's done unethical things? Or th at the feminist bullies thing, which does pertain to GG was clickbait/sensationalism"

Spot1990:
again, if GG is about fighting unethical journalists but only cares about unethical coverage of GG itself wouldn't just never starting GG in the first place have avoided all that? Either GG cares about more than coverage of GG or it's based entirely on circular logic.

Again, stop implying I speak for the entirety of GG.

I don't accept your assertion that GG is about fighting unethical journalists. As far as I can tell, it's ALWAYS primarily been about fighting unethical GAMES journalism. It branches out here and there to fix other problems, but that is just icing on the proverbial cake, not the cake itself.

That's why when people 'get mad' about GG not focusing on other things it shows they have a lack of understanding about the topic.

So what about the clickbait articles on gaming? The sensationalism?

RetardedChimp:
I don't accept your assertion that GG is about fighting unethical journalists. As far as I can tell, it's ALWAYS primarily been about fighting unethical GAMES journalism.

Very well, if you want to move the goalposts to that particular position...

Explain to me why there are websites listed on DeepFreeze that are nothing to do with GAMES journalism? - Many of which are listed as "Boycotted"?

Trying to claim that Milo/Breitbart isn't listed simply due to not strictly being video game related, is an extremely tenuous counterargument. Purely because that excuse has not stopped a significant number of non-gaming sites and journalists from being listed on DeepFreeze already.

EDIT: And it's not just DeepFreeze either. If we look at another GG resource, we find "Technology Websites", "Mainstream Media", and even "Community Forums" being listed as sites for boycott. And yet once again, suspiciously, no Breitbart.

IceForce:

RetardedChimp:
I don't accept your assertion that GG is about fighting unethical journalists. As far as I can tell, it's ALWAYS primarily been about fighting unethical GAMES journalism.

Very well, if you want to move the goalposts to that particular position...

Explain to me why there are websites listed on DeepFreeze that are nothing to do with GAMES journalism? - Many of which are listed as "Boycotted"?

It's not clear, so you have a point there. However the headings are "Outlet", "Current employees on DeepFreeze", "Former employees on DeepFreeze", "Scored DeepFreeze entries on current employees", and "GamerGate support status". So I'm guessing it's mainly the current and former places of employment of the people on DeepFreeze, plus the "GamerGate support status", given that not all the sites have a "GamerGate support status".

Trying to claim that Milo/Breitbart isn't listed simply due to not strictly being video game related, is an extremely tenuous counterargument. Purely because that excuse has not stopped a significant number of non-gaming sites and journalists from being listed on DeepFreeze already.

You asked for an explanation, yet you are already jumping to your conclusions?

EDIT: And it's not just DeepFreeze either. If we look at another GG resource, we find "Technology Websites", "Mainstream Media", and even "Community Forums" being listed as sites for boycott. And yet once again, suspiciously, no Breitbart.

Probably because Breitbart is neither a technology website, nor mainstream media website, nor a community forum that "GamerGate" visit. How can you boycott a site you already don't use?
edit: Breitbart isn't even on the "GamerGate" support list either: https://archive.is/wGmpb

I don't think anyone has really brought this up, but it's not just that DF seems bias. It knows about the problem even acknowledges it in some places, but then doesn't consider it a issue in need of fixing. They have a nice disclaimer that talks about how people critical of GG will fill more spaces simply because GG is going to be hunting and pecking their history, but then goes on to say that it doesn't think it's an issue. That was a the detail that stuck out most when reviewing the page.

Spot1990:
So you won't even admit he's done unethical things? Or th at the feminist bullies thing, which does pertain to GG was clickbait/sensationalism"

So what about the clickbait articles on gaming? The sensationalism?

Wait, according to 'you guys' (its fun grouping everyone together!) clickbait isn't a big deal at all and doesn't matter.

If all you have against Milo is that he is 'unethical' because he wrote 'clickbait'...well then that just cements my opinion that 'you guys' really are just grasping at straws because you don't like the guy. You've already admitted in this thread he is factually correct with what he writes regarding GG subjects, gotta go after him about something I suppose.

This will probably blow your mind because it goes against what I'm 'supposed' to think, but I care primarily about the factual accuracy and what is contained in an article more than what a journalist does to draw people in to read it. Clickbait can be a problem, but it registers less to me than a journalist fabricating things to push a point of view.

Try not to put too many words in my mouth if you respond please.

IceForce:

RetardedChimp:
I don't accept your assertion that GG is about fighting unethical journalists. As far as I can tell, it's ALWAYS primarily been about fighting unethical GAMES journalism.

Very well, if you want to move the goalposts to that particular position...

Lol. How do I 'move the goal posts' that you previously tried to set completely out of bounds? Like I told the other guy, you seen to have a very skewed opinion about what GG is/should be about. You're unabashedly aGG to the core, you don't get to define what GG is and isn't.

GG has always primarily been focused on gaming journalism, that is what spawned it, and that is it's primary motivation. Me telling Spot that isn't moving goal posts, it's just stating reality. You trying to use this wide net of catch-all nonsense to try and make a point about something doesn't work.

Now I want you, IceForce, to stop trying to drag my discussion onto things I've already been over with you months ago and tell me if Milo's Nyberg and Wu articles are factually incorrect or not.

nomotog:
I don't think anyone has really brought this up, but it's not just that DF seems bias. It knows about the problem even acknowledges it in some places, but then doesn't consider it a issue in need of fixing. They have a nice disclaimer that talks about how people critical of GG will fill more spaces simply because GG is going to be hunting and pecking their history, but then goes on to say that it doesn't think it's an issue. That was a the detail that stuck out most when reviewing the page.

So then how is DeepFreeze being biased an issue, when it has already disclosed said bias? That's the whole point of disclosure.

inmunitas:

nomotog:
I don't think anyone has really brought this up, but it's not just that DF seems bias. It knows about the problem even acknowledges it in some places, but then doesn't consider it a issue in need of fixing. They have a nice disclaimer that talks about how people critical of GG will fill more spaces simply because GG is going to be hunting and pecking their history, but then goes on to say that it doesn't think it's an issue. That was a the detail that stuck out most when reviewing the page.

So then how is DeepFreeze being biased an issue, when it has already disclosed said bias? That's the whole point of disclosure.

How dose disclosing something fix it?

RetardedChimp:

Spot1990:
So you won't even admit he's done unethical things? Or th at the feminist bullies thing, which does pertain to GG was clickbait/sensationalism"

So what about the clickbait articles on gaming? The sensationalism?

Wait, according to 'you guys' (its fun grouping everyone together!) clickbait isn't a big deal at all and doesn't matter.

If all you have against Milo is that he is 'unethical' because he wrote 'clickbait'...well then that just cements my opinion that 'you guys' really are just grasping at straws because you don't like the guy. You've already admitted in this thread he is factually correct with what he writes regarding GG subjects, gotta go after him about something I suppose.

This will probably blow your mind because it goes against what I'm 'supposed' to think, but I care primarily about the factual accuracy and what is contained in an article more than what a journalist does to draw people in to read it. Clickbait can be a problem, but it registers less to me than a journalist fabricating things to push a point of view.

Try not to put too many words in my mouth if you respond please.

This thread is about Deepfreeze. Do you think Milo should be on there for clickbait or do you think that other journalists shouldn't be? Also if it's so inconsequential to you can you admit Milo has behaved unethically?

Diablo1099:

Hey, you were the guys who said it was about Ethics, not IceForce. IceForce was just pointing out that Milo is unethical by GG Standards and therfore, what GG is supposed to be fighting.

Ethics in game journalism*

IceForce is the guy trying to state if GG doesn't hunt down every single instance of perceived ethics violations, journalistic or otherwise, that they are somehow invalid.

Diablo1099:

It's relevant as, in the example I use, he's the one with power to make the laws and he's willing to operate at a double standard, a harder one for people who disagree with him and a much more lax one for stuff he agrees with and even then, he doesn't hold himself to that same standard.

When it comes to GG his standard is pretty high, as well as ethical.

Other things? Don't really matter to me in this context.

Diablo1099:
It's relevant to GG because if he's being an unethical prick while in the same breath calling for better ethics on behalf of GG, it's going to undermine GG.

Thanks for the friendly advice, but I don't think GG needs tips on what would/wound't undermine it from the people who spent the last year desperately trying to do just that by essentially throwing handfulls of shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

In the context of GG, Milo is one of the most ethical journalists around. With people's hatred of Milo, let that sink in and hopefully you will see how bad the state of games journalism must be for that to be a correct statement.

Diablo1099:

So he could basically be the most unethical journalist on the web so long as he agrees with GG then?

Ah, see, I was wondering when you would try to misrepresent it to him 'agreeing with GG'.

He could agree or disagree with GG (he does disagree with GG on some things already), the only judgement I'm passing on him is in regards to his ethical conduct when it comes to GG. He could be vehemently anti-GG, as long as he's ethical when reporting on it I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Diablo1099:

Well, considering that a lot of the things he goes do outside of GG are the same things that other internet personalities have been crucified for elsewhere.

It sounds like your issue is with the way internet personalities are treated more than anything having to do with GG.

Internet can be a fickle beast.

Diablo1099:
Again, that piece on GTAO and how it's users are "Beta Males" and "No Reasonable Adult would play this game".
I mean, if you want to admit there is a double standard and you don't care about Milo's repeated ethical failings outside of GG, that's alright, just expect to be called out on it when you try to hold other journalists and personalities to the same standard.

You mean that piece that he came out and said he was openly wrong on? Yeah, how dare he. It's gonna shock you, but GG isn't this army of misogynist unforgiving trolls that you think it is, they are pretty reasonable when it comes to people admitting they made a mistake.

You say double standard but I'm not using one. The only standard I am using right now is if a journalist is ethical when reporting about GG. As I already said, other things Milo doesn't don't really interest me, he seems like a vain arrogant jerk, but he's ethical when it comes to GG. So, let me know when I criticize a journalist for not being ethical about GG when they have been nothing but ethical about GG and then you can try and hit me with claims of a double standard.

You keep trying to attribute things to my argument that I'm not making at all.

nomotog:

inmunitas:

nomotog:
I don't think anyone has really brought this up, but it's not just that DF seems bias. It knows about the problem even acknowledges it in some places, but then doesn't consider it a issue in need of fixing. They have a nice disclaimer that talks about how people critical of GG will fill more spaces simply because GG is going to be hunting and pecking their history, but then goes on to say that it doesn't think it's an issue. That was a the detail that stuck out most when reviewing the page.

So then how is DeepFreeze being biased an issue, when it has already disclosed said bias? That's the whole point of disclosure.

How dose disclosing something fix it?

Because the reader knows about the authors possible bias, therefore any reader should be extra vigilant in regards to that content.

Alright, so I got a response back from Bonegolem, the owner of DF. Here's what he had to say about Milo not being on the site:

Hey there, thanks for the mail and thanks for not assuming.

Full disclosure: I attended GGinParis with Milo. Very brief conversation. Not a notable personal relationship, but I err on the side of disclosure.

Milo sent me a tweet immediately after DF was launched saying he wouldn't mind being filed. He reiterated this in person when we met in Paris. I read some people that said I'm not filing him because I'm afraid he'd "bite back", and that's a load of bull.

Milo is "covered" by the provisional no-MSM rule that DF is enforcing. While I received accusations of this rule being specifically made for Milo and Ralph, I find the notion quite risible, since -- as can be noted from the rule I link -- this rule "protects" a mountain of Jezebel, Gawker and Guardian writers that I certainly have no friendly bias towards. Hopefully, when I finish some backend work on DF and start recruiting more admins, this rule will be lifted.

Will he be filed then? I dunno, depends. So far, while AGG's feedback to DF can be synthetically summed up in a whiny scream "BUT MILOOOOOOO", it encourages me to audit Milo, rather than sending proposed entries (which compose 95% of DF stuff - I run an archive, not a journalistic website, I hardly do journalistic research). Only fellow who sent me actually reasonable entries was thesquibblyone, the administrator of the DF subreddit, I addressed them and explained why I didn't find them proper material.

I've never seen your submissions before. Which speaks a lot of AGG, really. We can give them a check, as an exercise.
I don't find your "Sensationalism" entry to be appropriate DF material, to a quick scan. Sensationalism rules explicitly state the "most notable" examples apply, and the article is fairly strong in tone but doesn't seem to contain factual inaccuracies or libel, unless I missed them.
Given its broad diffusion and the stated intent of covering just the most relevant examples, the most arbitrary category in DeepFreeze.

Articles that have the highest chance of being selected are those that show poor research of factual inaccuracies, that damage a party without reasonable proof of guilt, that are widely quoted as examples of clickbait, or that appear to be appealing to emotion or taking a controversial subject or stance for the intent of inciting clicks.

The "libel" Storify... well, I'd say it's at best a fringe case. I have filed people for tweets, but that's as part of the intimidation category, which explicitly states the issue is with "threats" and "intimidation", aside from "libel". Is Milo libeling / threatening Cheong? I'd say his intent seems to be mockery, and is not to instigate attacks, and the only libel-ish emblem I filed, on Schreier, he's mocking Cheong on factually accurate data. If I had to consider this one, I'd definitely ask /v/ for their opinion, since I'm unsure.
I should note Leigh has a fairly similar emblem, but that's under a rule I just saw I haven't added (except on the Cronyism emblem) that states people are subject to more pressing scrutiny if they have already multiple offenses, and even if Leigh's emblem is admittedly fringe.
I should also note that Cheong was fucking badass in how he handled the nazi thing, even before his change of heart. Gave me a lot of respect for him.
Haven't read the articles on violent gamers, will though. Haven't filed anyone for that either (that might change when I publish that article, which covers that topic specifically). These, were I to evaluate them as issues, would get an amended emblem for sure, since he's openly said he regrets them (or at least that he's changed his mind).

Hope this helps.
I'd appreciate it if you were to share these with the Escapist thread. Feel free to give me a tug if something like this comes up again.

XOXO
Bonegolem

He actually provided me links to tweets and rules, but I'm not tech savvy enough to include them in the quote. Anyway, seemed like a pretty honest response to me. Go ahead and draw your own conclusions.

Milo's tweet: https://twitter.com/Nero/status/596061953572904960
No-MSM rule: http://www.deepfreeze.it/advanced_guidelines.php#entry-equal
Sensationalism rules: http://www.deepfreeze.it/ethics.php?s=Sensationalism

Spot1990:
This thread is about Deepfreeze. Do you think Milo should be on there for clickbait or do you think that other journalists shouldn't be? Also if it's so inconsequential to you can you admit Milo has behaved unethically?

Already discussed deepfreeze months ago. The clickbait section should be there as long as it's clearly labeled as such, a journalist listed only for clickbait/sensationalism shouldn't be written off completely, more just a 'tsk tsk/shame on you' situation.

This thread is also about Milo, I want to make it clear to people that are claiming Milo is somehow just as bad as the unethical journalists on deepfreeze who happen to shit all over GG regularly that the criticism towards Milo being 'unethical' has nothing to do with GG, and therefore would explain why GG isn't focused on it much, if at all. It's also why I don't really give a crap about people bringing up non-GG related things and trying to tar his GG related things with them. I don't subscribe to that sort of identity politics guilt by association thought policing nonsense, so it's irrelevant to me.

Milo could be a Nazi, pedophile, MRA, any other horribad thing aGG can come up with to try and smear him, it's irrelevant to his writings on GG as long as his GG writings are truthful and ethical.

inmunitas:

nomotog:

inmunitas:

So then how is DeepFreeze being biased an issue, when it has already disclosed said bias? That's the whole point of disclosure.

How dose disclosing something fix it?

Because the reader knows about the authors possible bias, therefore any reader should be extra vigilant in regards to that content.

I don't know if I can explain this. The bias is the issue. Knowing about the bias doesn't help with the issue. People don't find DF useful because they find it bias and such they don't believe it.

nomotog:

inmunitas:

nomotog:
How dose disclosing something fix it?

Because the reader knows about the authors possible bias, therefore any reader should be extra vigilant in regards to that content.

I don't know if I can explain this. The bias is the issue. Knowing about the bias doesn't help with the issue. People don't find DF useful because they find it bias and such they don't believe it.

Well other people without the same biases would need to provide useful feedback or contribute to DeepFreeze to help negate bias, at the moment it still seems to be the work of one person with only some feedback from people.

LOLITRON:
*Snip*

That is fantastic. Interesting to hear that Milo is fine with being listed on DF if it came down to that.

Really cements my opinions about deepfreeze, any perceived bias problem isn't due to the site's admins, it's that GG are the ones primarily raking through the mounds of unethical gaming journalism that is out there and submitting it (regardless of anyone elses claims, that is what GG is primarily about afterall). I think aGG already wrote it off as problematic since it pointed out unethical behaviors of some of the clique, so they want nothing to do with it. Meanwhile it keeps trucking along, disclosing everything, waiting for aGG to offer up actual instances of unethical gaming journalism that meet the criteria.

inmunitas:

nomotog:

inmunitas:

Because the reader knows about the authors possible bias, therefore any reader should be extra vigilant in regards to that content.

I don't know if I can explain this. The bias is the issue. Knowing about the bias doesn't help with the issue. People don't find DF useful because they find it bias and such they don't believe it.

Well other people without the same biases would need to provide useful feedback or contribute to DeepFreeze to help negate bias, at the moment it still seems to be the work of one person with only some feedback from people.

Can people do that? I am kind of confused on if it's meant to be like a wiki or authority. Though ya it would need help to be fixed. The issue I was pointing at is that DF doesn't think it needs to be fixed. It knows it's bias, but doesn't think it's an issue. That stance makes fixing the bias tricky.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked