All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
41:10
Why #Gawker is so Awful
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Everyone knows that Gorka is the cancer of the internet.
I don't think people quite know why Gorka is so bad, but I can explain it.
Gorka Media was founded in 2003 by Nick Denton, with Gorka itself being the flagship blog edited by Elizabeth Spires.
Spires didn't remain in her position for long, and Gorka for the next 10 years had a relatively high turnover of editors.
I think this high turnover of editors left Denton as the main personality driving Gorka.
I think Denton's philosophy and probably to a large extent his personality has shaped Gorka into what it is today.
And what Gorka is today, is a $300 million blogging network that has not only Gorka itself, which is focused primarily on gossip, but has also branched out into various specialty blogs.
These include but are not limited to, Jalopnik, which describes itself as a daily automobile news and gossip site for those obsessed with the cult of cars.
Deadspin, a sports news and commentary site with a humorous slant, iO9, We Come From the Future, which is a science and tech blog, Jezebel, which is a radical feminist propaganda blog, Lifehacker, a daily weblog on software and personal productivity recommendations, Gizmodo, a tech and gadgetry blog, Kotaku, a well-known video game blog, and a subsection of the main Gorka site called Diffamer,
of which the name is the description, much like Gorka Media itself.
The name Gorka describes Gorka Media in its entirety.
Every article written by a Gorka property is designed to make you stop and stare.
And there is literally no limits to what Gorka will do to make you pay attention.
Take for example the time that Gorka ruined an interactive advertising campaign by Coca-Cola.
You could go on Twitter, tweet something at the Twitter bot that would then take what you had said and turn it into a nice happy picture.
Quite amusingly, Gorka set up a bot to tweet sections of Mein Kampf at the Coca-Cola bot, making it produce make-it-happy tweets that revolved around white supremacy.
This became a problem to the point where Coca-Cola suspended the campaign.
And that's all well and good.
Nobody's against a bit of harmless trolling.
But there seem to be very few depths that Gorka won't plumb.
And I'm really not joking when I say that.
For example, when hackers get hold of a celebrity's Amazon orders, Gorka are quite happy to show that person's entire beauty regime with you, right down to their pubic hair dye.
I'm not joking when I say there is nothing Gorka won't print for the sake of decency.
These are just a few examples, but they really do remind you that the website is called Gorka.
It's not called Thinker or Ponderer.
It's called Gorka.
They want you to gork.
And if there's one thing that's guaranteed to get people gorking, it's outing gay people who are pretending to be straight.
Gorka does this with surprising frequency, with the most recent example being Gorka outing a man named David Geithner, the CFO of Condé Nast, and a private citizen who had the misfortune of being related to an ex-Obama administration official.
Geithner was a closet homosexual who's married with a family and probably wished his status to remain private.
But the escort got wind of who he was and tried to use knowledge of Geithner's personal life to blackmail him into pulling strings in his favour.
Geithner refused, so the escort leaked this information to Gorka.
And of course, Gorka had no problem publishing this.
As you can imagine, Gorka has earned a reputation from this, which is why I began the video by calling Gorka the cancer of the internet.
Because it absolutely is, and I am not the only person who has seen this.
Gorka has a long history for a blogging network, and in that time they have caused controversy after controversy, and to the point where people are openly denouncing them as being the worst of the internet, or simply decrying them for ruining people's lives.
A thing of which nobody at Gorka appears to feel any shame.
Given this track record, it's no great surprise that when people were given the opportunity to push back against Gorka's frankly unseemly practices, they pushed back really hard.
In August of 2014, a consumer revolt known as Gamergates began online.
Journalism in the gaming industry has long been corrupt, and frankly, people had had enough.
This online scuffle probably wouldn't have been too big a deal had the game journalists themselves been able to admit the corruption within their ranks and weed it out.
Instead, what they did is decide to censor all discussion on the subject and actively collaborate to attack their audience and position themselves as anti-gamer.
And yes, Gorka's gaming blog Kotaku was one of those anti-gamer websites that were leading the charge.
This attack on their own readership backfired, if you can believe that, and gamers decided to email Gorka's advertisers in what they called Operation Disrespectful Nod.
This was exactly as simple as it sounds.
Gamers simply sat down, wrote emails detailing their grievances with Gorka, and then sent them to Gorka's advertisers.
Often these emails would list direct grievances that people had with Gorka and list direct ethical violations, like this.
Someone on Twitter tweets using the Gamergate hashtag saying people are trying to put SJW stuff in video games, dox them and their families.
Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are the biggest exporters of bias in video game journalism.
We should flood Congress with emails hashtag Gamergate.
This is clearly an attempt at trying to sound like someone who supports Gamergate, but it's not very convincing, especially to someone who actually does support Gamergate like Roy here.
Putting SJW stuff in video games isn't unethical, but doxing is.
Why would someone from Gamergate want to dox anyone?
Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are the exporters of bias in video games journalism.
That in itself is a nonsense statement, and what good would flooding Congress with emails do?
Instead of blindly believing what Virgil Texas says, Roy decides simply to Google his LinkedIn profile, which reveals this person to be an employee of Gorka conducting a false flag operation.
And for some reason, they think demanding Roy delete the post is going to have any effect.
And with the jig finally up, our Gorka employee tries to unironically suggest that this information was obtained illicitly and publicized without permission.
Well, too bad, buddy.
And you remember you work for Gorka, right?
Operation Disrespectful Nod was actually a roaring success.
It really gave Gorka a massively bloody nose, which led to Gorka publicly licking their wounds, claiming that they got rolled by the dishonest fascists of Gamergate.
Boohoo, Max.
Boohoo.
Operation Disrespectful Nod, by Gorka's own admission, cost them 7 figures.
But more importantly, it got some of the more hot-headed Gorka staff writers to take to Twitter and make absolute bloody fools of themselves.
These public outbursts were actually a real boon to people who supported GameGate.
Not only did they provide them with concrete examples of why advertisers shouldn't support Gorka, but they also forced public apologies and retractions that are just almost as embarrassing as the original tweets.
But more importantly, Gorka's own writers became a liability, and it was in the interest of Gorka management to get rid of anyone quickly who became a problem.
This forced Gorka's writers to unionize against their management.
This is because Gorka's writers are becoming an unnecessary expense.
Gorka has spent millions of dollars creating a new kind of micro-blogging platform called Kinja.
And Kinja's motto is that commenters are just as important as writers.
Under the Kinja model, commenters and micro-bloggers will provide the majority of the site's value, with writers functioning mostly as cocktail hosts.
That's right, Gorka's writers are being made obsolete by their own audience.
These micro-bloggers would be disposable and interchangeable, almost making Gorka a new form of social media.
And if one of them says or does something on Twitter that causes a massive outrage or controversy before millions of dollars are lost in advertising revenue, that person can simply be banned at very little cost to Gorka themselves.
But getting rid of writers isn't the end of Gorka's problems, because quite often they will go on to spill Gorka's secrets and tell people exactly what it's like to be an employee at Gorka.
Recently fired writer William Arkin describes it, like social media as a whole.
It's also a miserable place so driven by its own feverish pursuit that it has no clue what kind of world it inhabits and thus helps build.
And he says that they are making the world a miserable place and he's glad that he's out of it.
It's hard to argue that this isn't the case.
Gossip and rumour mongering are rarely good things.
They rarely have any positive upside to them.
Especially to Gorka management themselves.
While they might be the bread and butter of Gorka, they might also be the thing that kills it.
Because it's not just gamers and Gorka's own staff that are pushing back against Gorka management.
There are some really heavy hitters going after Gorka.
Take for example 90s wrestling star Hulk Hogan.
Someone leaked to Gorka a sex tape of him having sex with his friend's ex-wife, which Gorka gleefully displayed for all the world to see.
Hogan took legal action, a judge ruled in his favour, and Gorka have flat refused to take down his sex tape.
So Hulk Hogan has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Gorka, which has the potential to bankrupt the company.
So naturally, not having a leg to stand on, Gorka decided to fight Dirty.
They decided to leak an alleged transcript of the sex tape in which Hulk Hogan refers to fucking niggers.
Even if this is true, it won't really have much of a bearing on Hogan's lawsuit with Gorka.
But again, it's a dirty tactic, and it appears to have had a direct effect on the WWE after they removed all reference to him from their website and disowned him.
Of course, the story of Hulk Hogan's battle with Gorka wouldn't be complete without Gorka making total asses of themselves and being giant hypocrites.
When Jennifer Lawrence's nude photos were leaked onto the internet, writers for Gorka's feminist blog Jezebel were not happy.
How dare a website like 4chan host nude photos of a celebrity without their consent?
This is an outrage.
These photos have been hosted on a porn site and a judge has ruled they don't have to take them down until she can prove she owns the copyright to them.
This is even more of an outrage.
How dare they?
And no, we will not be removing Hulk Hogan's sex tape.
Denton himself is confident that the law is on their side.
He was dropped by the WWE for racist remarks.
That would seem to put him on the ropes a little bit.
Maybe helps your case?
I think it shows some of the thing of his motivation.
It maybe explains why he's been so forceful in fighting this particular case.
But the facts of our dispute with Hulk Hogan are clear, the law is clear, and we look forward to the chance of defending the story in the courts.
Since Denton is so interested in talking about issues of motivation, let's go back to what's happened with the David Geithner scandal.
After massive public outrage, Gorka actually pulled the story.
One that Denton himself ordered to be removed.
Which, as you can imagine, is a very rare occurrence for Gorka.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that it's anything to do with the content.
I'm actually not nearly as British as people think I am.
I'm a gay Hungarian Jew, so I'm going to be as home in New York as I am in London.
Despite himself being gay, Denton does not care that he is outing other public figures as being gay, or in this case, a private figure.
And this despite being a gay man who himself has lived in the closet.
And this is because he believes that people are happier when they live in the truth.
And for some reason, this gives him license to operate as he does.
We will continue to publish stories like that.
That's what people are wondering.
And we will continue to defend stories like that.
And I am proud that we defend stories and we publish stories that many other media organizations will not touch.
Not because they're bad stories, but because they're fearful of the consequences.
Would you out a private person again the way this blog post did?
We would absolutely out a public figure.
In Denton's mind, the distinction that made this story a bad story wasn't the fact that it was salacious nonsense.
It was simply that the person involved wasn't a public figure.
And Denton's particularly warped moral compass enables him to justify doing this on the grounds that apparently people are happier living in truth, as if that is his decision to make.
It's interesting that he mentions consequences because there may well be more consequences.
Indeed, this means more lawsuits.
And Gorka staff, the proverbial rats that they are, have decided that this sinking ship was not worth staying on.
How does Denton justify this?
Well, he claims that the problem is that they are men of principle.
And the fact that Denton has intervened and pulled an article means that they can't guarantee Gorka's editorial integrity.
Prepare your sides.
The editorial independence of the company is not just a principle, it's the core of our mission, it's the core of the company.
You say that, but your two top editors resigned.
I asked them to come on the program today and they declined, but they resigned because of you meddling, they would say, with the newsroom.
Both Max Reed and Tommy Craggs, men of considerable principle, and sometimes inflexible principle.
Ah yes, the considerable and inflexible principle of being able to publish whatever salacious gossip they want.
The social media firestorm that Gorka has been under from the publishing of the Geithner story has caused Denton to publicly claim that Gorka is undergoing a relaunch and they are reconsidering, quote, the role of niceness in journalism, saying that the new relaunched version of Gorka will be 10 to 15% nicer than the old one.
However, this isn't going to solve any of Gorka's problems, because Gorka's problems do not come from how nice they are.
Gorka's problems come from the way that they operate.
And fundamentally, the way that they operate is dictated by Nick Denton.
But it was my decision.
I am the founder of the company.
I was the editor of Gorka.com.
I am the guardian of the editorial ethos of the company.
This was counter to what I want us to be doing, and therefore I had it taken down.
The problem with Gorka Media is Nick Denton's complete lack of scruples.
Is there any place you won't go?
Is there any subject that's off-limits?
A company lawyer asks me that question sometimes, and I try to define the answer.
And this can be seen most strikingly in the way Gorka operates and the incentives it offers to its employees.
Meet 45-year-old Nick Denton, who says the key to his success is breaking all the rules.
Here are the words most often used to describe Gawker.
You tell me true, not true.
Snarky.
Yeah.
Sexual.
Nude photos of private parts.
If it's interesting.
You report rumors, you don't always check it out.
Shameless.
Yes.
Irresponsible.
Defined by who?
Mean.
Mean.
Occasionally, but the web is different.
That we publish faster, we change faster, we correct faster.
And frankly, the standards, our standards of publication are lower.
All the things that never get published, that never get broadcast, those are the stories that we run.
We run the offcuts, you know, the things that you're too precious to run.
So from Denton's own mouth, the standards are lower.
In fact, they seem to be so low as to have been abandoned entirely.
This is going to sound really, really pretentious, but I believe in the larger truth.
I believe that the truth is arrived at, often in a rather messy fashion, and that gossip is part of the process, that we'll put out a story and it will be rough and ready.
And then, frankly, television and newspapers will kind of come and follow on like a day or two later once we've done the dirty work.
And he has abandoned journalistic standards because he knows that someone else will come along and clean up his mess.
What was your vision for Gawker when you started?
That it should be authentic and it should capture the real conversations, the things that people actually talk about.
Denton somehow forgetting here that a lot of the time people talk about bullshit.
But okay, so Denton is a gossipmonger who's enamored with scandal and there is literally nothing he won't print.
Let's have a look at his operation.
Let's see if there's anything in his operation that might help explain it further.
His empire is now housed in these trendy downtown offices complete with a roof deck for parties.
And the bloggers have grown up.
And over there?
38 and 33 and 37.
They're well paid.
They get insurance.
They do.
They get a 401k plan.
They do.
And they're well educated.
Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, even this.
Some of us here do have master's degrees in journalism from Columbia.
Sorry for pausing it on Baldilocks' face here, but you can see the problem again.
They're all in the same office, very much sharing the same work culture and ethics, or lack thereof.
But I'm sure they're all working very, very hard.
Let's see exactly what they're doing.
Most posts are cannibalized items taken from other sources, repackaged, topped off with catchy headlines.
Right.
So they spend their time finding interesting stories that other people have written, stealing them, ripping them off, giving them a clickbait headline, and then pumping them out to the world.
Well, that's great.
To what end?
Why would anyone do this?
We're living in the Gawker age, where news is driven by what will draw a crowd, or in this case, a click.
This is the most terrifying thing we have to show you here for traditional journalists, because it's as if every single day is, every single week is sweeps, and the numbers tell the whole story.
It's called The Big Board, and it displays the second-by-second traffic on all of Gawker's sites.
It's a popularity contest, and the bloggers know what drives traffic.
And here we are looking at the black heart of Gawker.
Everything about their site is to simply increase the number of people who click on it.
Because that is, of course, ad revenue.
By hook or by crook, there is no means to foul for them to take.
There is no depth they will not stoop to.
There is nothing they won't do to get you to look at their site and increase their numbers.
Gawker destroys people's lives.
It ruins their relationships.
It breaks up families.
All to squeeze a few more pennies out of their ad revenue.
Denton's proud of this.
He grins like a fucking lunatic, thinking, oh, I'm doing such a great thing.
I'm making so much money by abandoning standards.
And I suppose the last question we have to ask ourselves is what kind of person would voluntarily work for Gawker?
Emily Gould.
She's the editor of the website gawker.com.
Hello, Emily.
Hi, Jimmy.
You look like a very pleasant woman, but I have to say that tell everyone what you do, what goes on on your website.
Well, I think that maybe the issue that you have might be with our Gawker stalker map, am I right?
Well, yeah, I mean, I think that's, well, explain what that is exactly.
The Gawker Stalker map tells you where celebrities have been sighted in New York City at any given time.
So you can sort of scroll around and see, you know, Jude Law was shopping for condoms at the Dwayne Reed in Midtown.
So if people are out and they have their cell phones, they can send a little message to you and say, I just saw Gwyneth Paltrow at the movies, and that way, when Gwyneth Paltrow comes out of the movies, there can be at least a dozen psychopaths waiting for her.
That's actually a popular misconception about the way the stalker map works.
Oh.
It doesn't really happen in real time.
I think that's why George Clooney got so upset because he thought that we were actually enabling delays there when you say sometimes there's a couple of hours that elapse between when a stalking like a stalking.
It's not actually.
What is the shortest delay that you'll have?
I mean, is it sometimes, can it be 15 minutes after they see a celebrity?
It can be, but it's rare, really rare.
I've had my clients in five minutes.
You've had like five minutes.
I've had them in a store going, these if you think she is unbearable so far, it gets worse.
My problem is you post things that simply aren't true on the site and you do no checking on your stories whatsoever.
I'll give you an example.
There was a story about me that popped up on my Google search.
It said, Daly Gawker-Stalker, when isn't Jimmy Kimmel visibly intoxicated?
And there's a story about me being visibly intoxicated.
I know it may be funny to you, but I didn't find it that amusing.
And matter of fact, the story that talks about me being drunk, I was coming home from my cousin's, my one-year-old cousin's birthday party with my elderly aunt and uncle and my kids and my cousins.
And I was, I mean, I may have been loud, but I was far from intoxicated.
And you put these things on there.
I mean, I know you're an editor.
What exactly are you editing from the website?
There's a whole other aspect of our website that doesn't have anything to do with the stalker map.
But what the stalker map is, is citizen journalism.
People don't read it with the expectation that every word of it will be gospel.
Everyone who reads it knows that it isn't checked at all.
What they read it for is the immediacy.
That's necessarily true.
You get an unfiltered sort of the way that people perceive celebrities in real time that you don't get from any other media.
And that's what I get.
But you also get what is essentially slanderous statements or libelous statements put on your website.
I mean, for instance, today I noticed there was something about Kevin Costner.
I went on to see what was there today, and it just said how fat Kevin Costner was, and then I had a picture of Job of the Hut next to him.
Now, I know you sell advertising.
I don't know why anybody would buy advertising on a website, but I don't know what the point of something like that is.
There's also a big contradiction.
She said citizen journalism.
She used the word journalism and then said, everybody knows not everything's true.
Most journalism journalists at least try for the truth.
It's a goal.
I mean, if you read Us Weekly and expect that everything in it is true or star, I think we actually probably get calls from them fact-checking, and I don't from your website.
That's absolutely true.
Us Weekly at least has a legal department that vets things.
And our photographers at least are taking photographs of things that are happening as opposed to, I mean, I just want you to think about your life and, you know, weigh your options.
And I mean, because I would hate to see you arriving in hell and somebody sending a text message saying, guess who's here?
You know what I'm saying?
Honestly, I think that there's a shifting definition of what is public and what is private space for everyone, not just celebrities.
The internet, blogs, MySpace.
No one has the reasonable expectation of being able to walk down the street and not have what they're doing be noticed by someone like that.
Well, that is just a terrible thing, though, isn't it?
I mean, is it really?
I mean, I think it's great that we're not putting people up on a pedestal and worshiping them anymore.
I think it's good that people are acknowledging that celebrities are real people.
They're all at them, though.
I mean, it seems to me that they're kind of protected by piles of money from those rocks.
No, no.
No, not.
And by the way, not all celebrities are wealthy.
I mean, you know, that's a silly and stupid thing to say.
You know that.
Come on now.
Just because people have money means it's okay to say false things about them, to tear them down.
It's not okay to say false things about anyone.
Well, you should check your website then.
Thank you for talking to us.
Anderson Cooper 360 is on at the top of the hour.
Can you even imagine what it's like to talk to someone like that?
Well, I can, because I have.
I had a debate with a Jezebel writer about Gamergate.
And, well, this is how that debate ended.
It's an industry blanklist.
That is the issue.
I don't know how I understand this anymore clear.
And I really think that you are arguing in bad faith by repeatedly trying to reframe the question in ways that I think you know are disingenuous.
I mean, I think you know it's disingenuous to say that Gamergate doesn't engage in the harassment of women, but you continue to make that claim too.
So I don't know.
I kind of don't know what to say.
I think that we've come to the point where there's no point carrying on then, because I...
Are you quitting?
What do you mean?
Am I quitting?
Are you giving up?
I mean, let's, no, let's keep on.
Let's keep on doing this.
I mean, unless you really believe.
To what end?
What good would come of this?
So, okay, if we're...
No, no, no.
If we're preaching in here...
Don't ask...
I want to...
I want to understand why you think that people felt the need to create a tool where they had to block.
I want to know why you won't answer a single question I'm asking you.
I want to know what you think, what good will come of continuing this discussion.
Answer it.
I mean, I think that maybe eventually, if we keep talking, we can try to figure out, you know, what's next?
Because I think we can both agree that Gamergate in its current form is, I don't want to say dying because I think that might offend you, but is changing shape.
It's becoming something else.
The question is, what is next?
Right, I think what are the longest.
I mean when I say don't ask a question, I want you to tell me what productive use continuing this conversation will have.
I mean, maybe we can be friends.
I severely doubt that.
See, there we go, Paul.
Thanks for inviting me on.
I appreciate it.
Thanks for showing everyone.
Take care.
Okay.
The incentives that Gorka has as a company, the way it operates, attracts the worst kind of people.
People who won't take you seriously, they won't take what they're talking about seriously, and they will treat any interaction with you like a game.
Because to them, it is a game.
It's what they can draw out of you.
It's what they can take from you to get for clicks.
There's a reason everyone says that Gorka is the cancer of the internet.
Because it is.
And thankfully, even Google can see it.
Gorka is to be penalized by a new fact-based search algorithm, says Google.
Now, I have my doubts about what Google determines to be facts, but the point of this algorithm isn't to base search results on popularity.
Because as Gork have shown, popularity can be artificially inflated.
Truth be damned.
Google are at least making an attempt to try and tie the most successful and therefore the most popular results to the ones that become the most factual and accurate.
So to reiterate, Nick Denton's business practices, his practices as quote unquote, a journalist, are the reason that Gorka will always be the hellhole of the internet.
It's his bullshit philosophy that controls editorial policy.
It is the abandonment of standards and their warped system of incentives that attracts the scum of the earth to go and work there.
And they are so bad that they can unite in metaphorical arms against them, thousands and thousands of people from all different kinds of walks of life.
To the point where Google is taking action against them.
Bullshit.
was a big, huge problem.
I mean, when I read articles like that, it doesn't sound like they're saying that gamers need to die or that gaming culture needs to die.
It sounds like they're saying that it's changing, you know, and part of the way that it's changing.
When you label it as gamers are over, gamers are dead, and you are talking about it, and then when you call them shitboards in the middle of it and things like that, and you insult them with vitricle words in your writings to your audience, and you're insulting,
you're attacking your audience, when you can come out as Leia on the Exo ExoFest and say, I insulted and attacked my entire audience, and I still have a job, and I'm quoting that, then yes, that she intentionally did it to attack her audience.
I mean, but isn't she an example of what you're talking about criticism versus harassment?
No, that is not criticism when you start talking names to your own audience and you can't.
So calling names is harassment?
No, but when you have 14 articles dropped to suggest that everyone needs to be removed from gaming and that these people were bad people, I don't know.
I don't say that as criticism, I say that more as and then it's found out that it's planned, then it just seems more as a push on the media rather than somebody's opinion of criticism.
If everybody's saying the same thing in the same day, at the same time, and then 150 of them are in a, in a call saying yeah look guys, we all put out the same articles together and then it gets promoted and it gets published at Reitbart and shows that it's true, that that is what happened, then that is not their opinion of criticism.
That is just basically them pushing a narrative that they want to push and it has been seen repeatedly and it's going to continue to be seen.
But um, I think that's.
I think we've gotten really far, though I think i'm.
I'm glad that you came on Anna, I really am.
Um yeah, it was really interesting.
I mean, I think we we really really fundamentally disagree about a lot of things, but I also think that, in light of what you're about to say, it's really fascinating that you're saying that Gamergate doesn't engage in harassment or there's not a harassment problem, and I think that's where we're always gonna differ.
But at least we can talk.
That is the important part.
We can have these discussions and we can act like human beings rather than people flinging crap all over twitter.
Well, except for me and Carl, I guess me and Carl can't talk.
But I did try, you did try.
God help me.
Well, I appreciate being on, ANNA.
I'm gonna go ahead and address my the the chat and then i'm gonna wrap up.
Yeah, that's gonna be fascinating.
I'll be listening.
All right, i'll talk to you later, see.
oh my gosh what a stream bring sfo on who's that who's uh who's f oh you talking about fuck you Uh, pretty poor.
Ah well hey, all right.
So pole, you stand up for you stand.
Well yeah, of course i'm gonna stand with that what I had to say.
It's absolutely true that all that stuff that was stated was true, all right.
So yeah, I know, but it's, you know, what we got as best as we can get.
Well chat, okay.
Um, it's been, it's been wonderful doing all these interviews and streams.
I think I, since since what was it august?
Was it august or september?
Since the beginning, i've been doing these interviews for a long time.
I've brought in a huge amount of interviews for a lot of people that I think, discussions that needed to be had and discussions that needed to be seen or heard so people understood the barriers that were between one type of group and another type of group or whatever.
You know Anti-gamergate or Gamergate or not even just that.
You know, just just different opinions that people have or different statements, and whether or not they're they're going to, and it's, it's been a long and awesome ride.
With that being said, I I feel, I feel that at this time, it is necessary to delete this channel.
I know you saw some of my Twitters, my Twitter stuff, and you saw my, my YouTube's gone and everything like that.
I'm going to be deleting everything and just starting over on my own stuff and it's gonna, if you ever find me, it'll be pseudo psych political discussions Of history and stuff like that.
I'm not leaving Gamergate.
That's not intentionally what I'm leaving.
▲
Export Selection