[BryantD]

I have a pretty simple algorithm for articles about the dangers of public shaming. If they fail to catalog GamerGate and the online shaming of Zoe Quinn as an example of the problem, they are probably not a balanced look at the phenomenon. I find Justine Sacco's case is a reasonable metric for the other half of the equation.

[zozbot123]

> If they fail to catalog GamerGate and the online shaming of Zoe Quinn as an example of the problem

One word: /v/

So yes, the online shaming of Zoe Quinn is a crystal-clear example of the problem we're dealing with here! And this fact alone (though a seldom-acknowledged fact) actually explains much of how a lot of the "censorship" that fed the GG controversy originally came about.

[AcerbicZero]

My understanding of the GG drama was that it started fairly unsavory, but rapidly became about something entirely unrelated to Zoe and her relationships.

The reaction from the gaming media organizations being accused of serious (if video games can be serious) lapses of journalistic integrity, complete with multiple examples of it just poured fuel onto the fire. After that, I stopped following it, but it does seem that more gaming media organizations put effort into disclosing conflicts, so perhaps some good came out of it in the end.

[BryantD]

Agree in part, disagree in part -- but nonetheless it's a pretty significant episode of public shaming, and I have a hard time imagining a really high quality article about the subject that doesn't cite it.

[mcguire]

I'm afraid I only saw the GG thing after it had stopped being about journalistic integrity and video games (whatever the hell that is). Unsavory is a pretty mild description.

[zozbot123]

Spoiler: there's no "before" and "after". It was always about /v/ trolling Zoe Quinn. And to some people, I suppose, it was about journalistic integrity and video games (to channel '45'). Does one negate the other? That's a hard question, and a matter of interpretation - no matter where you stand, you'll never get everyone on the same page.

[matt4077]

Funny, how the misogynistic mob finds a defender here, seeing the good within the hate. Meanwhile, the dozens of incidents cited of sexists and racists rarely get more than a "I, too, believe this is the end of free speech".

[zozbot123]

Defend the misogynistic mob? That's exactly what parent did not do. Indeed, the unsavory, /v/ element was always a huge liability for GG as a social phenomenon, and I don't know of anyone who would even attempt to deny this.

[matt4077]

"It started really bad, but [...] some good came out of it in the end."

That's a defence, without question. It does include an acknowledgement of the harms of what happened, but by pointedly ending with a hand-wavey invocation of some supposed benefits, it is characterising those harms as a sort of necessary evil.

[Grue3]

The difference is that Quinn was widely praised by the media, and ended up getting a book and movie deal out of it. It's a poor example of "dangers of public shaming". Sacco, like many other victims, was vilified by the media and lost everything.

[BryantD]

I have good news for you! Sacco was hired as Director of Communications by FanDuel about 6 months after IAC fired her from a similar director-level position. She was promoted to VP at FanDuel two years later, and she is currently the VP of Communications for Match. (Which, as it happens, is owned by IAC.)

But that's not really the point. Let's say that Sacco's life really was destroyed... isn't that an even better reason to compare and contrast the two cases? Instead, the article we're talking about implies that the right never shames people. I sort of feel like that's a bad approach to the question.