Blog

KatsBits blog. Raw opinions, news and commentary on gaming, the Internet and technology and how it affects independant game and content developers.

# # #

Gamergate was always a shakedown, so too GamerGate2

March 20, 2024, 05:37:06 PM by kat

Gamergate was always a shakedown. So too is GamerGate2.

What's being plainly exposed with GamerGate2 is just how much of a blatant shakedown 'representation' as it was, 'diversity, inclusion and equity' as it is now, actually was and still is.

The same people, the same entities, the same rhetoric safely framed within the confines of an emotive, and to use the word, 'triggering', victim and abuser narrative, they, million dollar, and multimillion dollar entities, being the victims of gamers abuse.

It's such an easy sell, no one likes abuse, abusers or bullies, most people reflexively turn on anyone accused of it without thinking to ask any questions. The activists know this, so can't necessarily do anything that would expose themselves or what they do, so they obfuscate.

But there is always a pattern, an underlying threat narrative, the never-quite-obviously-stated negative consequences game developers, game studio and game publishers will experience for not doing what 'DIE' activists tell them to do ('to get that sweet, sweet, cheap money'), the whole "nice game you have there, shame it might break if you don't do what we tell you to".

Seems a bit too rhetorically and divisively provocative?

Surely they're not actually saying that?

Perhaps not in so few words, no. But otherwise most definitely yes, as evidenced with a talk scheduled for GDC2024 titled "So You've Been Canceled. Now What?". The summery frankly reads like a serial abuser snidely remarking to their victim after a good beating "what are you crying for, you made me do it" or "this is what you can do to make sure I don't hit you again".

Can someone who has hurt others, even repeatedly, actually change? What comes after the call out? What can someone do if they've been called problematic, but aren't totally sure why? Or, after losing friends, jobs, and networks, how does a person move forward if they want to become someone who won't cause that type of harm, even unintentionally, again?

These are the very same vociferous activists that constantly claim to be victims of abuse from the broader gaming community, edited screenshots of social media posts in hand, and for GamerGate2, these claims come as a consequence of being noticed in relation to their input and influence over, what gamers have been finding, are demonstrably bad games (notwithstanding causation, correlation and all that). And of course when this behaviour is identified, out come the enablers, the apologists, fellow abusers, to pile on their victims from ivory towers and distant corporate shores.

But that's all beside the point; their language, their rhetoric, how they confidently but carefully curate and couch what they say, is every bit the carefully curated and couched language of an abuser. Their victims need to realise this and reject it as they would under any other circumstance.



Footnotes

1. Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20240320092451/https://schedule.gdconf.com/session/so-youve-been-canceled-now-what/902670. Archive.is https://archive.is/4MwHE.

GamerGate Never Ends... Gamers as National Security Risks

March 15, 2024, 08:47:50 AM by kat
GamerGate never ends... because it's far too useful a tool to The Invisible Hand(TM) that are societies "Stakeholders".

In other words the propensity of gamers to be disagreeable is reason enough to 'monitor' and 'watch' their activities, in the name of redirecting or "countering disinformation" - the 'politically correct' way to say "terrorists" and/or "national security threats" without saying "terrorists" and/or "national security threats".

Gamers :o

cf. pages 50 & 51 in particular in the below (snapshot attached to post) - what's being described in the below screenshot, these 'alternative networks' of 'self-validating' "research", is Wikipedia. Or rather, information hubs that are not as formalised but function as alternative to Wikipedia.

What's interesting here is the outright dismissal of who the people involved in these 'alternative networks' are - they are as likely, if not more likely, to be in fields of science, engineering, math, politics etc., but are instead diminished and minimised whole-cloth, and simultaneously elevated to positions of being, essentially, "right-wing conspiracy theorists" and national security risks.

Gamers are right-wing national security risks

Note: the document below was originally published in 2021.

USAID Disinformation Primer... by FoundationForFreedomOnline

GamerGate2 - SweetBaby Boogaloo

March 11, 2024, 05:36:47 PM by kat
GamerGate2 - SweetBaby Boogaloo shows that GamerGate never truly died. Instead the leopard simply changed its spots from an issue involving and revolving around a few infamous individuals, to one now involving businesses, organisations and corporations, and how the same brand of divisive toxic politics and 'activism' can be used to leverage compliance in support of a particular 'diverse, inclusive and equitable' (DIE) outlook that, as gamers see it, pollutes established Intellectual Properties and 'cannon' stories. The question has always been though, how exactly do these types of organisations and business find favour with game development studios and publishers, especially when they often have little or no writing, creative or other design experience?

They, game studios/developers/publishers etc., are basically gambling, weighing/running the risk of undermining an IP or brand for sake ESG/DIE to get "cheap money", against the projected big payoff at the end through sales.

Quote
Former game executive and develop at Blizzard Mark Kern
@Grummz: "The way games are funded you don't use your own money. Even EA, it's games are hugely expensive to make they're they're upwards of you know 250 sometimes 600 million dollars it's for certain live games it's incredibly how expensive they are and to do that uh your CFO is your best friend.

"You're counting on your CFO to get you tax breaks to get you in to put studios in regions which are financially favorable and you will borrow the cheap money you will get a cheap money to do it. Even EA does this. I worked with EA; we were putting together a deal where they were taking bailout money from the banks in the last financial crisis that we had, and they were applying that cheap money towards games same thing with Covid money. They're applying that cheap money towards games, and what has been the cheapest money while interest rates were still low, you know a couple of years ago it was ESG financing, and so they're going to take this money."

"Because the returns on investment have been so poor on Wall Street for ESG funds, that source of Revenue is drying it up. This Woke machine cannot continue in the way that it is now for AAA gaming, and I think unfortunately, it's so entrenched that you're not going to see - you're not going to see much of an ability to course correct because the studios are - they're just gonna shut down."
[source]

Quote
Mark Kern explains how ESG money comes with strings attached inside corporations and is used to make companies partner with DEI consulting companies like Sweet Baby Inc:

"Everyone needs to realize is that it's not that these Studios are funding the games out of their own pocket; that would be very expensive for them. Cash is king. They will preferably go out and get money from other sources if it's cheap enough to help spread the risk of these massive titles, and so you have a lot of quid pro quo happening, and I can tell you that developers have been approaching me and giving me some inside baseball on what's been happening, and there are deals funding deals out there for studios - and I can't get too specific; I don't want to out sources - that have certain strings attached like a company will suddenly sign with a developer and now that developer needs to hire a DEI director and needs to go out and hire consultancy firms to gender balance."

"Their staff quite specifically go out and hire companies like SBI to consult on their writing and do sensitivity reading and changes for that, and what does, all this does, it boosts their ESG score. It allows them access that funding so ESG is not going away entirely."

"It's [ESG] become an evil brand. People are waking up to this... You have you have a rebranding going on right now. They're not calling it ESG, but it's still out there."
[source]

HOUSE OF LORDS - Large language models and generative AI

February 03, 2024, 02:57:25 PM by kat
Not yet read so placed here for continence on the topic of GAI (Generative AI/General AI)  "HOUSE OF LORDS Communications and Digital Committee 1st Report of Session 2023-24, HL Paper 54, Large language models and generative AI".

Quote
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (published Feb 2024)
The world faces an inflection point on AI. Large language models (LLMs) will introduce epoch‑defining changes comparable to the invention of the internet. A multi‑billion pound race is underway to dominate this market. The victors will wield unprecedented power to shape commercial practices and access to information across the world. Our inquiry examined trends over the next three years and identified priority actions to ensure this new technology benefits people, our economy and society.


Scorched Earth Policies to Stop AI Art

February 01, 2024, 11:05:27 AM by kat
As a consequences of the scorched earth approach artists and creators have taken towards AI generated content, many are advocating platforms and services implement a zero-tolerance policy to the medium. At face value while this might seem an effective immediate solution to stop the proliferation of AI generated art, long term this type of thinking, of outright bans or prohibitions, won't work because AI auteurs will find ways around them; tools and protocols will be updated to recognise obfuscation technology faster than such 'watermarking' efforts can be programmed and utilised. That or they'll just ignoring any restrictions.

What artists, forums, communities, do to address the threat they perceive AI art poses depends on the relationships creative communities want to foster with regards to Generative AI and its use. For example, as outright bans won't work, for the aforementioned reasons, so perhaps a better direction to take is to require those using AI declare their content as having been made with AI, in part or whole. This could be an obligatory policy that is 'zero-tolerant' insomuch as an individual being banned for breaking such 'disclosure' rules rather than simply for using and/or producing AI content. This punishes behaviour not products (use of AI itself).

Perhaps more pertinent to artistic communities, is education, not outright "AI art bad, human art good", rather, AI artists need to understand the direct and indirect costs AI has on their ability to monetise and/or protect their work, especially in regards to Copyright law, which currently does not protect AI content in of itself - this means any work an AI artists publishes online can, and likely will, be misappropriated and used by someone else, or AI, and there will be nothing the OP can fall back on to remedy that situation. Raising awareness of this reality may cause some to pause or at least properly consider their options with regards to using GenAI.

Following on from the educative point above, AI artists might be encouraged to fully utilise the iterative power of AI as a production tool quickly able to provide a framework around which artists can create digital collages, paint-overs, or simply a means through which artists can improve technique and skills - it should be noted that this use of AI is far more likely to fall under the auspices of Copyright because it becomes a tool within the individuals workflow, a 'filter' of sorts that assists the user towards a realised goal.

Going scorched earth with AI isn't really a battle that can be won by direct, offensive action, it cannot be stopped with ban and prohibitions, especially as its creators can implement changes faster than rules, regulations and other remedial actions can be put into place. Instead it needs to be won by highlighting its (current) systemic limitations, financial especially.
 
^