Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 02 2015, @11:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the harrassed-turtles-all-the-way-down dept.

As the March kickoff for the weeks-long 2016 South By Southwest (SXSW) festival approaches, its disparate sections—music, film, and interactive—have begun announcing confirmed panels, speakers, and showcases. SXSW Interactive appeared prepared to host a panel about the hot-button topic of online harassment and abuse, but that plan changed on Monday when a festival director officially announced that the panel, along with another tangentially related panel, had been canceled due to allegations of "numerous threats of on-site violence."

SXSW Interactive director Hugh Forrest posted the news at the festival's official blog, though Forrest didn't confirm whether the threats were linked to both panels that he confirmed received the axe: "SavePoint: A Discussion on the Gaming Community" and "Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games." After describing SXSW as a home for "diverse ideas," Forrest also described a desire to maintain "civil and respectful" dialogue.

"If people can not agree, disagree, and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised," Forrest wrote. "Maintaining civil and respectful dialogue within the big tent is more important than any particular session."

And then, just a few days later, we have this report that the panels were restored:

South by Southwest's organizers reversed course Friday and scheduled a summit about gaming-related Internet harassment, after criticism for canceling similar sessions at next year's event due to threats of violence at the festival.

"Earlier this week we made a mistake," Hugh Forrest, director of the SXSW Interactive Festival, said in a statement on its website. "By canceling two sessions we sent an unintended message that SXSW not only tolerates online harassment but condones it, and for that we are truly sorry."

[...] "While we made the decision in the interest of safety for all of our attendees, canceling sessions was not an appropriate response," SXSW's Forrest said, adding the organizers had worked with authorities and security experts. "Online harassment is a serious matter and we stand firmly against hate speech and cyberbullying."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Monday November 02 2015, @02:15PM

    by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday November 02 2015, @02:15PM (#257502)

    It's a little more complicated than that. The "GamerGate" panel (SavePoint) wasn't actually a "GamerGate" panel. In fact a lot of the GamerGate community was a little upset because the organizer wanted to distance SavePoint from GamerGate, but he used GamerGate to get the panel in the first place. In any case that got worked out, but it was a discussion about the state of the industry and Gaming community and had nothing to do with harassment.

    After the anti-GamerGate crowd got wind of it, things all went haywire and threats started. SXSW cancelled both panels, but didn't say where threats were coming from or who they were directed at. There was a massive media blitz about it saying it was GamerGate threatening them and they needed to reinstate the Levelup panel (the harassment discussion), which consisted of some of the Internets worst harassers (Randi Harper, Zoe Quinn, Kathryn Cross). Then the "SJW", (I hate the term, but it's the best way to describe this crowd), started going on a tirade about how that wasn't enough and SXSW needed a WHOLE DAY PANEL on harassment. So SXSW agreed, but (and I think this was done to troll this SJW crowd) also invited the SavePoint panel. Now the SJW crowd are losing their minds because this is like a "rape victim having to sit on a panel about preventing rape with the rapists who raped them". Randi Harper, Authur Chu, Chris Klew are threatening to boycott SXSW now because they're "giving GamerGate" a platform.

    Personally it's bull, IMHO, but this was exactly what happened with GamerGate to begin with. A discussion about ethics was hijacked by people who wanted to talk about harassment. Who did so by harassing the people talking about ethics, then claimed they were the harassers which forced the ethics people to have a conversation that wasn't part of the issues they were talking about.

    --
    "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday November 02 2015, @02:20PM

    by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday November 02 2015, @02:20PM (#257505)

    Sorry, I had Zoe Quinn as one of the Levelup panelist, her and Brianna Wu have been invited to talk at the new all day summit with them, but they weren't on the original panel, which was Randi Harper, Caroline Sinders and Katherine Cross.

    --
    "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
  • (Score: 1) by meustrus on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:34PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:34PM (#258198)

    A discussion about ethics was hijacked by people who wanted to talk about harassment. Who did so by harassing the people talking about ethics, then claimed they were the harassers

    That may be how a GamerGater sees the situation, but to everyone in the outside world who isn't paying attention, all GamerGaters (that we know of) are actively doxxing the anti-GamerGaters. That's the message about your movement now, and frankly it's your own fault for not vocally denouncing those people early and often.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday November 04 2015, @11:57AM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday November 04 2015, @11:57AM (#258342)

      You don't get to speak for everyone outside of, or not paying attention to, Gamergate.

      The only reason you think Gamergate supporters spend all their time doxing, WHICH WE WERE VOCALLY AGAINST, is because THE MEDIA told you that's what we do. And like a good little sheeple, you just listened with no critical thinking.

      Gamergate is a consumer revolt against THE MEDIA, and for some reason you expect THE MEDIA to report on their own corruption fairly? Stop being an idiot.

      This is one of the earliest images from when Gamergate started http://www.historyofgamergate.com/uploads/3/9/4/1/39411291/5597243_orig.jpg [historyofgamergate.com]
      Note the text:

      I support #GamerGate

      I condemn personal threats
      I support women in gaming

      I am against bias and corrupt journalism

      The issue is THE MEDIA is the gatekeeper, you're only getting information from them and the few times Gamergate has had a platform to talk and try and clear the air, it's ignored, it was shut down by bomb threats, or sheeple (like you) go on a tirade to have the reasonable discussion shut down so THE MEDIA'S side continues to be the only side heard.

      But yeah, Gamergate is totally not about taking a corrupt media to task and 100% about harassment, THE MEDIA told you so. Right?

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by meustrus on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:59PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:59PM (#260133)

        It doesn't matter where I got this impression. For the record, most of it comes from discussions like this on Slashdot, where, as I'm sure most here would agree applies to most discussions there, reasonable arguments from any side were very hard to find. It also took quite a long time for me to even figure out which side was Gamergate and which side was anti-Gamergate. So you know, good PR on your part.

        What matters is that I have this impression, and unless you think I'm the only "sheeple" in the world I'm not alone. Your message is not coherent. The only things that have stood out are "THE MEDIA"'s focus on doxxing and your collective tendency to go off on rants about poorly-defined "social justice warriors".

        Your complaint about "THE MEDIA" just sounds like sour grapes because you're losing the PR battle. What exactly are Gamergaters even up to these days besides complaining in their own increasingly isolated community? Do you expect to fix corruption in the media by peeping out every so often to vent your frustration?

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 06 2015, @05:16AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday November 06 2015, @05:16AM (#259294)

      That's the message about your movement now, and frankly it's your own fault for not vocally denouncing those people early and often.

      You're going to blame the group for the actions of others? Have you no concept of personal responsibility? There are feminists who are total nutjobs, but I wouldn't make the claim that other people who identify as feminists must therefore waste time arguing with said nutjobs. Why bother arguing with nutjobs when you have an actual goal you want to accomplish? Just because I identify as a member of group X doesn't mean I also want to police every member of group X if they do anything I don't like.