+5
There's no such thing as rock bottom, folks.
Uploaded by Schabbs Sep 02, 2014 at 07:48PM EDT
cringeworthy quinnspiracy gamergate
Origin Entry: Zoë Quinn
File type: png
Resolution: (1200px x 1920px)
File size: 426 KB
Uploaded by Schabbs Sep 02, 2014 at 07:48PM EDT
cringeworthy quinnspiracy gamergate
Origin Entry: Zoë Quinn
File type: png
Resolution: (1200px x 1920px)
File size: 426 KB
![1:58 PM (4 hours ago) ☆ ▼ to Hello As I'm sure you are aware, Casey Johnston recently wrote an article titled, The death of the gamers" and the women who "killed" them. This article is a piece of an ongoing controversy I'm sure you've already heard too much about. I'm hoping not to rehash what you already know the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-kille them/ What concerns me about this article is two part. First, that the article was clearly prompted by some sort of talking point memo source. It uses the same conception, phrasing, and aggressive "concerned" style as nearly a dozen articles with shockingly similar titles, released on other sites on the same day Is this typical of articles on Ars Technica? Do political and PR companies normally dictate the tone, focus, and content of your articles? Second, is even more concerning. It seems the source of these talking points was likely Silverstring Media, a PR company who is planning to manufacture a product for sale using the same phrasing Casey used in her piece. This now means that Casey's article serves as what has become a clandestine marketing campaign from a PR company. Ars Technica is effectively providing free advertising for a product for sale by a politically driven PR firm. That doesn't seem like a situation I would have expected from any of Ars Technica's writers in the past. The below link/screenshot are from Maya Felix Kramer's personal Twitter account, and was released prior to Casey's article s://twitter.com/legobutts/status/501855043612848 /pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwia CAAAI1z7.png:lar Thank you 2:52 PM (3 hours ago) ☆ tome ! The article is an original work, and the only source materials used are those linked in the article. There were no additional sources, and there was certainly no contact with anyone from a PR or marketing firm/agency before or since I imagine the similarity in language you are seeing stems from the technical vocabulary of feminism, abuse, and more recent online discussions about inequality in general. The timing of the article was also pretty much the result of the story breaking into the mainstream, particularly once researcher Dan Golding had written on it (he is the one who coined the "death of gamers" and carried out the most sociological of analyses to date) Regards From: Sent: Tuesdav, September 02, 2014 1:59 PM Subject: Marketing in recent Ars Technica article 4:24 PM (1 hour ago) ☆ He My mistake. What an incredible coincidence so many authors uncritically referenced an obscure Tumblr post on the same day on the exact same topic, shortly after the merchandise was being discussed (with the "WE KILLED THEM" bracelet existing before this Tumblr post). It is odd that Dan Golding's article (http:l/dangolding tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers) was published on the same day with no communication with Casey or these other article authors! It is all rather remarkable, don't you think? Is rewording Tumblr posts a common method Ars Technica writers use as the basis of their articles? Is calling for the "death" and "ki appropriate to you? Would we often use such strong and hateful language? Do you imagine your technical writers would directly reference the killing of, not Android, but Android users? The dead of iPhone users? Seems unnecessarily provocative and potentially dangerous to use suclh language, don't you agree? illing" of a large segment of Ars Technica readers //www.facebook.com/attentionseekersi osts 382 9888 Sorry if any of my sources or timetables are off. I'm no journalist, op-ed is so much easier Thank vou for vour time Mail Delivery Subsystem to me Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently 4:24 PM (1 hour ago) ☆ Technical details of permanent failure Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain arstechnica.com by 9a.ess.barracudanetworks anetworks.com. [64.235.154.66] The error that the other server returned was 550 permanent failure for one or more recipients@arstechnica.com quarantined) Original message](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/822/784/3e6.png "A conversation with Ars Technica")
