-
IGF has released their new report on “cyber-violence”
-
New section freaks out about GamerGate for 6 pages
You might remember GamerGate’s history with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
If not, well — one of the IGF’s forums this year has been hijacked by the leftist, radical feminist, pro-censorship organization known as the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). If you aren’t familiar with either of these organizations, I wrote a post just a couple days ago that starts out with the full overview of our history, so check that out if you need more background info.
The IGF has finally released their newest report.
I’ve already gone over the last report, and what’s really interesting here is that these radical feminists have actually taken my scathing criticisms to heart.
For instance, when I broke-down the previous draft of this report, I pointed out that their only citation for ‘how evil GamerGate is’ came from Gawker.
Here’s a quote from that post:
Back in Ocbtober, their official social media campaign got raided by #GamerGate preemptively, after I broke the story on YouTube, it got reported on by The Ralph Retort, and eventually by Allum Bokhari at Breitbart.
Then, Jac Sm Kee made the press release at the Association for Progressive Commutations that said that GamerGate is an example of what should be made illegal, after we crashed their hashtag campaign that was meant to collect case studies for the report. Jac Sm Kee is the ringleader of the radical feminist operation to censor the entire internet to rid it from what she deems as “hate speech”, and was caught covering up the participation of an incompetent coworker. She subsequently ran damage control after being confronted.
Before we dive in, let’s just skim the surface of the report and show where she uses GamerGate as an example of why we need to eliminate free speech on the internet:
First of all, the things like death/rape/violence threats are already illegal in probably every country. The only other form of harassment they mention is doxing. So, I guess they want to make doxing illegal, even though doxing is just looking up and posting publicly available information.
Now see where it references citation 45 as proof of the claim?
She completely discredits her entire report by citing an article by Gawker, an outfit that loves outing gays, which is ‘gender based violence’ according to the report. They also love to release sextapes, which is also a form of online violence according to the IGF. Not to mention Gawker is just an all around shitty propaganda blog with no journalistic integrity and zero credibility. And this citation is their only supporting evidence for their claims.
Wanna know how they responded to the hypocrisy of using Gawker as a source on how evil doxing is, after it was pointed out to them? Well, in this version of the draft, they changed the citation so that it’s not referencing Gawker any longer.
Wanna know what who they cite now? It’s even better: Wikipedia. :^)
Yep, these morons cite the horribly biased GamerGate Wikipedia page as evidence for how evil we are. In a governmental report, that will end up being cited by the UN. That is, if these dumbfucks don’t change it now that I’ve called them out on how incredibly incompetent they are, once again.
Ya know, its kind of funny that the report says “Accessed 26 November 2015” when it lists the Wikipedia citation, considering my scathing critique was posted on November 22nd. I guess they saw my report and scrambled to find a better citation. I wouldn’t exactly classify Wikipedia as better though.
They also took my criticism of the fact that the previous draft had completely left one of the original coordinators of the report out. After I asked the secretariat why she had removed the coordinators’ name from the report, she put it back. I wrote an article that criticized her for doing this, and for not disclosing that the woman in question was originally a coordinator of the report, after her name was added back to the list of contributors. In this version of the report, they seem to rectify the situation:
Hey, kudos to the IGF for disclosing Subi’s true relationship in this draft. Unfortunately, now they have to deal with the fact that she is an incompetent fraud, and she was listed as the coordinator of the report for the majority of the time.
The section in the report that is new in this draft is the section about our alleged “cyber-attack” against the #TakeBackTheTech hashtag. How one “attacks” a hashtag, I’m not quite sure, but it didn’t stop these cry-bullies from exaggerating and whining for 6 whole pages.
APPENDIX 5: SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
Background
As a part of the BPF’s objective of engaging as many stakeholders as possible on the issue of online abuse and gender-based violence against women, BPF participants decided to gather further stakeholder input on one of the BPF’s sections of work, namely the impact of online abuse and gender-based violence. The social media platform Twitter was used for this purpose.
Context
At the time of the scheduled Twitter conversation, the BPF’s second draft document (Draft II) had been published on the IGF’s review platform with the aim of gathering stakeholder input on the BPF’s written work. The social media campaign was planned with the aim of also encouraging stakeholders to comment on the draft and to, as far as possible, gather input that could potentially be used to further augment a pre-existing theme of the BPF’s work, namely impact, with primary examples. Shortly before the BPF’s Draft II was published and before this social media campaign was planned, the UN Broadband Commission published a report on a similar topic than the BPF’s work, namely cyberviolence against women and girls.
Oh, they wanna bring up the infamous Broadband Commission report as if it was something to brag about. Remember
that one? It continues:
The report attracted a lot of publicity and later criticism and was subsequently withdrawn for further input and updating, although it remained available online.
Hmm, I wonder why it attracted a lot of publicity. Maybe because it was utter shit?
Actually, the statement that it remained available online is a falsehood, because the Broadband Commission withdrew it publicly and actually apologized to the world in an article by
Motherboard/Vice. This statement is interesting because it admits that they totally abandoned the project after being embarrassed like that.
I hope the same happens with this report after I’m done with them.
Lets continue with the report:
The day before the social media campaign was scheduled to commence, 9 October 2015, BPF participants started receiving tweets and emails warning and threatening them of an effort to hijack and derail the BPF’s planned social media campaign (henceforth ‘the attack’). One email to a participant, for instance, included the following threats (sic)(note that while the identity and contact details of the sender is known to BPF participants, it is not disclosed for legal reasons):
“I hope you enjoyed how your whole campaign got destroyed preemptively. I’ve been waiting to strike and today was a glorious day. Tomorrow will be better. Your whole operation to shut down free speech online has been exposed, and you haven’t even felt the wrath of the mainstream media yet. Just wait. The stories are starting to break. Your hashtag is already destroyed, most likely permanently. All of your groups information has been downloaded and archived. Scrubbing it now won’t do any good, and will actually make things worse…”
The e-mail she quoted was mine, and it was sent to the organizer of the social media campaign, Katharina Jens. Of course, there was no threat there at all. All I said, was that we were going to destroy their ideology. These cry-bullies are making threats up out of thin air in order to get sympathy to further their agenda, which is a common SJW tactic.
Here’s a full copy of that email:
The report goes on:
The attack took place on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, email, blogs, some small online publications, and the IGF’s review platform, where Draft II of the BPF’s outcome document was published (see Appendix 4). It included messages, images, memes, ‘opinion’ pieces and videos.
Oh, God. Memes? Opinion pieces and videos? Shut. It. Down.
In the course of two days (one weekend), over 25,000 tweets and retweets were gathered on the hashtag #takebackthetech, and some BPF participants received direct tweets, often threatening and misogynistic in nature. 15,225 tweets included links (pictures or weblinks), while 835 tweets were replies (indicating actual attempts at a conversation rather than just filling the hashtag). The APC’s Wikipedia page was altered (although quickly restored), and there was also a possibly related brute force attempt to gain access to the IGF’s review platform where the BPF’s Draft II had been published.
My, that’s just terrible. Their Wikipedia page was altered. How can they cope?
Some BPF participants were furthermore contacted by individuals purporting to be from media outlets in the hope of eliciting personal information about other BPF participants. These attempts were easily identifiable as false and failed.
Haha, that was me too. I used a burner account and attempted to pretend to be an intern at The Young Turks in order to try to elicit some information out of the leader of the report. It almost worked, but she didn’t buy the spoofed email. Here’s a screenshot of that email:
I almost had her hooked. Here’s her response:
And this was the spoofed email I sent, which didn’t work, unfortunately.
Seriously, these retards running the report are pretty easy to troll. I mean, sure, she didn’t end up buying the spoofed email. But she’s still freaking out about it in the report. I still won. She is still giving the troll exactly what he wanted. How dumb are they?
These people just can’t keep from freaking out every single thing I do or say to them. It’s easy trollin’. Too easy, honestly.
Let’s go back to the report and watch them freak some more:
At more or less the same time, BPF participants found content on platforms like Reddit and 8chan that indicated the concerted nature of the attack on the BPF’s campaign. One comment, for example, read: “Who’s down to raid tonight? Last time we had 20, and I’d like to get a group of 100. So tag any friends who might be interested in raiding in the comments.”
Ok, this right here is hilarious. First, let me show you something. They actually cited a /ggrevolt/ thread in the report, and for some reason they put the citation on Reddit. Apparently they get confused between the two. I’m actually impressed that these retards were able to find our hideout on /ggrevolt/, and figure out how to archive, but more power to them.
Again, they’re just feeding the trolls here. And we’re the trolls.
But now lets get back to that supposed quote from either “8chan” or Reddit. Well, it’s not from Reddit, because that quote doesn’t show up in Google. At all. Not to mention raids are against the rules on reddit, and that rule is strictly enforced on KotakuInAction.
And the quote is not from that /ggrevolt/ thread, because they included a fucking
archive of the thread in the report.
Edit: new information regarding the quote:
You see, I am the one who said this quote. On october 9th, and the next couple days after that I was organizing maskfags on kikebook to Hijack the hashtag on there as well. I called it a “raid”, simply because calling it that got more people to join OPtakebackthetruth. When I said “tagging” I was reffering to tagging others working in OPtakebackthetruth on posts that promoted the “online violence” narrative under the hashtag. What we did consisted of posting the takebackthetech hashtag with your videos attatched, while invading the comments of the #takebackthetech posts that promoted IGF censorship. As you recommended I did archive many of these raids. Going to paste the archive links below.
Looks like we’ve both become citations LOL
https://archive.is/UoC8G
https://archive.is/3lnmW
https://archive.is/WnAno
https://archive.is/ULyu7
This one right here is an archive with the only person I could get to debate me from the other side.
https://archive.is/2zs6L
What’s interesting is the very quote of me they are using in the new report to justify censorship under the guise of protecting women, is just me and a group of people who wanted to raise awareness about the the content in the report, and as you know…. the IGF welcomed discussion on their website, and once again is playing the victim when they get what they ask for. Glad I archived what really fucking happened.
Let’s continue:
Many of the individuals involved in the attack seemed to associate themselves with the so-called Gamergate community (whilst remaining mostly anonymous and/or using pseudonyms). An email received by one of the BPF’s participants, for instance, contained the following claims (note that while the identity and contact details of the sender is known to BPF participants, it is not disclosed for legal reasons): “Behold, I am the leader of GamerGate and you are only beginning to feel the wrath of legitimate political activism in this new era…. But darling, you are just beginning to feel what it’s like to get dunked on. We will not stop at destroying your campaign and jamming it up so that you can’t even function publicly…”
Again, another email from me here. This time they really cherry picked to take the sentences out of context. Here’s the full e-mail, for comparison:
Was I trolling her? Yeah, sure. Is that a fucking crime? Not yet, but apparently they are using me as multiple examples of the type of ‘attacker’ that needs to be criminalized. And all because I told them I wanted to destroy their ideology in the court of public opinion.
It continues:
Much of the content of the tweets and other messages seemed to derive from misunderstandings, including a confusion of the BPF’s work with the UN Broadband Commission report; a misunderstanding of UN structures and the IGF’s work; a related misunderstanding of the methodologies of BPFs and the IGF as open, transparent,community-driven, and multistakeholder platforms; and the misinformed belief that the BPF’s work was somehow aimed at limiting free speech online under the guise of protecting women. With little exception, most content suffered from a severe lack of misunderstanding of UN and IGF processes, the roles of BPF coordinators and contributors, as well as the ‘status’ of the BPF’s intended outcome.
Apparently they admit, here, that it wasn’t really an attack at all. They admit it was really a bunch of people who have a different opinion than them, that they wish to censor.
They’re mad that we’re not buying their bullshit lies about how ‘it’s not really about censorship’.
In addition, much of the content appeared to be aimed at intimidating, silencing and exposing private information about BPF participants; contained misogynistic and sexist language and imagery; contained racist and xenophobic messaging; was homophobic and / or transphobic in nature; and many tweets contained graphic images and content of sexualised violence.
Lol. She just threw about every ‘ism’ in the book at us. Nice. Back to it:
Common messages included:
- Online violence against women is not real violence
- Violence happens against men too
- Feminism is about censoring men
- Gender studies is worthless
- Women just choose not to study STEM
- Women are too weak if they can not handle criticism
- Women should not be in technology fields
- Women should shut up/ be silenced
- #takebackthetech hurts women in tech by making them victims
- #takebackthetech is a bunch of white, privileged feminists
- #takebackthetech uses women in “developing” countries
- #takebackthetech minimises “real” violence
- The BPF is run by the UN
- The BPF report is another version of the Broadband’s Commission’s report
- APC is part of the UN and wants to censor everyone
- APC is a bunch of professional victims
- APC has loads of money from questionable sources
This leaves no question. What the APC is actually mad about is that people disagreed with them online, and didn’t buy their propaganda.
Some of the actors involved in the attack also attended open and freely accessible BPF virtual meetings using false names and impersonating other (real) people. These kinds of actors, of whom there were fortunately few, seemingly aimed to compromise the open and participatory format of the IGF’s BPFs and derive from a clear and unfortunate misunderstanding of the ways in which to participate in the IGF’s multistakeholder work.
Strategies adopted by APC
APC, who were directly involved and affected by the attack because of the use of #takebackthetech, at first also adopted a non-engagement strategy.
After a few days, some APC staff members started engaging tactically and more directly with a few of the attackers tweeting under #gamergate and #takebackthetech, particularly those asking questions that involved criticising APC’s work and questioning the existence of online abuse and violence. Staff members did this with the knowledge of APC and using their personal Twitter handles. APC released two statements to denounce the situation, to provide information on the attack and its basis, and to call for support from the community.
The first one was published on 10 October 2015, the day after the attack began, offering a response, informing the APC community of the situation, and sharing strategies for supporting APC and the BPF. The second statement was published on 12 October 2015 with facts about the Take Back the Tech! campaign and clarifying the false arguments that were being circulated as part of the attackers’ strategy.
In one week the statements received a high number of reads (2080 reads on the first, and 3264 reads on the second statement). These statements were shared with media outlets, individual journalists, partners, members and engaged activists, and were republished and shared among other networks.
Well, it’s great to know that the
APC’s epic spergout when we raided the hashtag will be memorialized, as it has been officially cited in the report.
That’s all for now. I’ll probably have a post in the future that goes over some more details of the report. Download
a copy of it for yourself. The part about the Twitter campaign starts on page 179.
