So, a referendum of anonymous individuals. If I threw out a "hey #gamergate people, what's your feeling on this?", what, precisely, is preventing anti-GG people from coming together and responding en masse?
Im sorry i edited my post to slowly to better respond to you.
I guess you would have to look into peoples past twitter activity to see there history on the topic and judge if they are being truthful.
I guess this is kind of the core of all of this for me: in an era of complete online anonymity, nothing can be determined to be true with any certainty. If person X were to send out a "hey, gamergate people, what do you think about women?" tweet and the results were 50% "we totally like ladies and wish they were represented in gaming better!" and 50% "burn the witch!", who decides which responses are authentic or not? If someone has little twitter history, should their opinion be disregarded? Should those opinions be disregarded based on which opinion they advance? If someone is new to Twitter, does their opinion count less than someone who has a thousand posts behind them? If 10,000 new accounts say one thing, should we value those responses more than 100 accounts with significant histories behind them?
Most of these are rhetorical questions. I don't really have good answers for how things are going. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but at the same time it's frustrating to think about this kind of stuff.
I guess these are some of the problems that have come with the information age that we, as a society, haven't quite figured out yet. Honestly, I think the problem of communication over the internet is the crux of all the drama that has happened over the past weeks. We're going to have to find a solution for it if anything is going to change.
Log in to comment