The official reason was along the lines of "I don't want to host another Project Chanology," but it probably had more to do with the fact that moot was closely involved with at least one Gawker Media employee[1] and spoke at XOXO[2] alongside numerous companies and organizations that the Gamergate movement is adversarial towards.
EDIT: Downvote all you like. I'm not making any judgement pro or anti Gamergate in this post, I'm just pointing out a rather large conflict of interest.
I don't know why this is downvoted. Moot is involved with somebody at Gawker Media. If he is getting social pressure about "sexist" or "misogynistic" content, like pervycreeper claims, it's not out of line to suggest she could be a huge influence on his behavior.
There's nothing naive and presumptuous about it in the least, it's an ethical violation that wouldn't fly by most professional standards and there are vast tracts of legal obligations most people adhere to which define those boundaries, no matter what a small group of hacks suppose.
fortunately the more responsible publications have already updated their policies and looked inwardly to prevent fucking up so publicly and obviously again. (We can hope at the least they won't soapbox to their readership that they are assholes for calling them out!).
Thank you for refusing to engage. You make the rest of us look so damned good. You disagree, but you won't say why? You say we're wrong, but won't say why? That's a good way to encourage open debate.
BTW: this guy is a journalist for TechCrunch. I only mention it because it explains why he doesn't want to actually debate the topic.
Actually, I write for NBC News mainly. I only do columns now and then for TC. Neither of those things has any bearing on me 'refusing to engage.' I really just don't care to (though I didn't want the TC allegation to go unanswered, not that anyone's listening). But I know you'll choose to believe what best advances your existing prejudice. Be my guest.
But I know you'll choose to believe what best advances your existing prejudice.
I choose to believe what I can prove. You provide nothing of substance. Empty words and air. You work for ABC news and not TC. Ok, great. What does that have to do with Moot?
The initial scandal was that Nathan Grayson had been friends with the relatively unknown developer of Depression Quest for a long time, to the point of getting thanked in the credits of the game. He then plugged it, here:
...without disclosing the relationship. Which could have been resolved with a simple apology and adding disclosure to the articles, but several major game sites instead responded with such a storm of ridiculous charges that game journalism was instantly sullied even more than it already was.
Because of this, GamerGate has been poorly covered in most game sites and rags like TechCrunch, so it's not surprising that you hadn't heard of this.
Direct link: https://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ Yes, this is what first implicated Grayson. I'd say its primary purpose was to get people to avoid her, but any interested parties can read the whole thing.
I would say not disclosing something that's clearly a potential conflict of interest is scandalous. That Devin, a writer for TechCrunch disagrees is... interesting. Illustrative.
It's pretty sad how all it took was time and a thin coat of feminist paint for HN to forget how corrupt and morally bankrupt these clickbait "journalists" are.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gvtrp/
[2] http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/833450-gamergate
EDIT: Downvote all you like. I'm not making any judgement pro or anti Gamergate in this post, I'm just pointing out a rather large conflict of interest.