@aven@Moon@icedquinn@teratology >those people speak for themselves, not for "gamers"
you have to put some controls on group membership because the actions of whoever takes on the "brand" will shape its reputation. it's not a novel convept, e.g. trademark holders need to actively defend their trademarks to not risk losing them. so claiming that harassment was not part of goobergrapes would require a credible effort to exclude bad actors, which nobody undertook.
>I'm trying to say that real people with real jobs at real companies making real money with their actions, lying about groups of people, is not comparable to anons going on the internet and telling lies.
that's a technicality and doesn't actually matter to anyone except meme war vets who haven't gotten over their vietnam
>The journos desperately need those two things (professionals lying and anons lying) to be equally valued, to create a "well both sides did bad things so it cancels out". If those things aren't equivalent, then they're assholes.
the journos operate in a value system where you lost from the very beginning, to them death threats, misgendering, swatting etc is a billion times worse than being overly general in a hit piece meant to boost morale.