Logan_Mac

Why did you stop defending censored people, and not only that, but you employ people that actively campaign for the censoring of books circulation like Chase Strangio?

What are your current views on free speech and do you think there is such a thing as "dangerous speech"?

Would you support a law that censored controversial ideas/deplatforming on social networks like those Chase Strangio is against?

Even people that think this whole GG thing is stupid should look into this. Most of the editors that participated in the editing of the article in the beginning, namely Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof (the people with the highest porcentage of edits) were banned after ENDLESS wiki misbehaviours. The wiki court decided to ban almost everyone involved, from all "sides", Ryulong went on to edit RationalWiki, an infamous "SJW"-wiki behind things like Atheism+.

There are editors that have spent up to a year guarding the article. like TheRedPenOfDoom, there has been editing by proxy/meatpuppetry (in which banned editors request others to edit for them). Whatever you think of GamerGate, its Wiki article is the perfect example of everything that can go wrong with Wikipedia. The media of course, will be heavily biased towards a movements that is against them, so most articles go with this narrative. But there are indeed sources that say what GG at least self-identifies as, yet the lede of the article barely even mentions it. It uses power words like "misogyny" ad nauseum (in one instance of the article you could count up to 40, it must be higher now).

Go ahead and read the article on Al Qaeda, a group that has been universally dubbed a terrorist cell, yet its article mentions the word terrorist once in its lede, preferring to dub the group as a "global militant Islamist organization". How come articles on Hitler, ISIS, or tons of other entities universally considered bad get fairer articles?

Does your belief swift from free speech absolutism has anything to do with the record in donations since 2017 you've recieved, including active campaigns by Hollywood stars and big multinational corporations including the Facebook "vicepresident of ads and business platforms" Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, a $1.59 million donation by Twitter employees, $4 million by Google's, an undisclosed donation by "Google Ventures " that was called "the most important investment we'll make all year", associations with Y Combinator, Lyft, etc.?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/30/the-aclu-says-it-got-24-million-in-donations-this-weekend-six-times-its-yearly-average/

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14523466/aclu-y-combinator-trump-silicon-valley-donations

Given a social media oligopoly debate, do you think you can remain neutral and defend the civil liberties of the population at large, or will you side with your record Sillicon Valley donators?

What happened with the Zoe Quinn scam?

They haven't been defined as a terrorist organization. Heinous ideas still are allowed to be expressed, this is why the ACLU defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march the streets. If you forbid those "dangerous" ideas, the dangerous morality bar will move closer and closer to yours, until you're banned from marching the streets for any mildly controversial idea.

What banning these bad apples does is just put them together in an echo chamber that makes them think their ideas are sane because they're never called out on it. This is textbook how extremism is created.