Long time lurker around here. Just wanted something clarified from the pro-GG types around here like Troy:
Ultimately, if we are to assume this has to do with ethics in journalism, what does that really matter in the video game industry? Hobo kind of touched on this (how it's simply a form of entertainment) and I get that video games are a multi-million dollar industry but what does one reviewer mean in the grand scheme of things? Would him giving a game that was getting mixed reviews an 8 instead of a 5 really going to impact anything? Would Zoe Quinn be receiving, say, a million more dollars than she would have otherwise? I just don't understand why this apparently mythical review even mattered to begin with, let alone enough to cause threats. If it was journalism about ethics in politics or war or something that really, truly mattered, I get the point of being upset. But I'm confused on what it is about the gaming journalism industry that is sacred and had to be preserved.
Maybe I just don't care enough about video games, but I'm genuinely interested in getting more info on GamerGate's significance. You know, aside from the insanity that came out of it.