It was a lover's spat. You should hear both sides of the story before you judge no? Of course the ex will say bad things about his ex, especially a lover scorned. Which makes him not the most reliable of witnesses.

Also beware of mob mentality when not all evidence is present. It only leads to gamergate style hysteria. Not a pretty sight.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Wait, you actually think she was sleeping with Nathan Grayson for media exposure, based on her exes blog post?

Wait, does gonz actually believe that she slept with Grayson for a good review of her free game Depression Quest on Kotaku, when Kotaku has never ever published a review of Depression Quest, and the single mention of it Kotaku ever made was in a "5 free indie games to check out" roundup article that Grayson wrote a month before their relationship?

I mean, some people are hella gullible, I suppose.

Hey, please don’t leave.

@Facewon where is the middle ground in all these competing circumstances.

These are what I consider to be reasonable expectations:
1. Victims and allegations taken seriously
2. Alleged perpetrators have presumption of innocence

Further there are reasonable observations
3. No legal system is perfect
4. Probably more victims get ignored than innocent people get prosecuted

Those points are relatively non controversial. But the controversy arises when names get named. For lack of better term, people who get named face the weekly two minutes of hate. This is not limited to peers and colleagues but the tangentially related global hashtag audience. Is it any wonder these people can end up suicidal?

As someone opposed to capital punishment I find it incredibly disturbing to see someone driven to suicide becaused of twitter heat (regardless of whether they did it or not, death is never an appropriate punishment). I know it wasn't death by another's hand, but there isn't much distinction here.

And yes, this is to say nothing of the harassment campaigns against victims of abuse that me too and gamergate targets that is well documented. But that doesn't lie at a nexus of competing rights for dignity (8chan trolls etc are morally reprehensible and I don't think it really needs to be stated less I be misconstrued intentionally by someone).

My real concern is this whole discussion is something unsuited and far too easy to devolve into a collateral damage fest when held on social media platforms. Death is a high price to pay for being a shitbag, by anyone's hand including their own. People should feel as uncomfortable about that as they should about any single instance of uninvestigated sexual assault.

And for the record, one high profile victim of a false me too accusation is Johnny Depp.

An accusation (likely a true one) via the media and cutoff from former employers/colleagues? Surely not a coincidence.

Its a convenient platform for pile-ons?

Vela wrote:

Its a convenient platform for pile-ons?

Which is unrelated to him being either accused or cut off.

I mean, there are plenty of reasons why this guy may have killed himself; guilt and being ostracised being the main ones. Blaming people calling him out on Twitter for his death seems like a stretch to me.

Vela wrote:

Its a corollary. Surely you can see that?

If you deny it has an impact then digital harassment cant exist either.

I’ve said repeatedly in this conversation that harassment is different. People calling out bad behaviour is not harassment.

I doubt that, if he saw it, the Twitter stuff would have helped his mental state, but ‘driven to suicide because of Twitter heat’? Come on.

So your stand here is based on there being no difference between targeting and criticising?

.

So should bullies, abusers etc. never be outed?

Yossarian wrote:

Vela wrote:

Deliberately obtuse.

I still find this sort of bollocks quite offensive. My brain doesn’t work like most peoples’. Accusing me of being deliberately obtuse is like accusing someone in a wheelchair of being lazy.

Oh ffs.

You are twisting every sentence I say into something completely at odds with the explicit description and its my fault for being misquoted successively?

djchump wrote:

So should bullies, abusers etc. never be outed?

To a global audience? Put them in the stocks so a few million people can point and laugh? Sure, that wont have any consequences.

Vela wrote:

djchump wrote:

So should bullies, abusers etc. never be outed?

To a global audience? Put them in the stocks so a few million people can point and laugh? Sure, that wont have any consequences.

So what audience should their actions be outed to?