Says right there that their interests just aligned. No threats of violence just of bankrupting them. That would be by boycotts and contacting advertisers like the Gaters have been doing so far already and it has worked. Ten seconds of research on some random persons twitter feed. Wow.
As someone neutral I usually see people that are Anti-Gamergate say there is no Anti-Gamergate, yet with junk like this you prove that type of stuff false. You take some random person's out of context tweets, and use it as the basis of a hyperbolic insult that does nothing, but drag this mess out. The common definition of a real terrorist Shjade is a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. Terrorism is those violent acts
that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Good thing the Gaters denounce all threats of violence and have even targeted harassers on Twitter.
And before you say it Guilt by Association is a fallacy so do not bother with it. It is: A) Counter productive. B) Unjust and Illegal everywhere.
If you are saying Gamergates are terrorists Shjade then someone should tell the NFL, Chick-fil a, Disney, Firefox, and Donald Sterling and the NBA that they were the victims of a terrorist attack when people organized boycotts and contacted their advertisers for their concerns too. So I guess it is a good thing most people do not fall into the hyperbole camp, and try and use the second meaning of the definition like you do. Because that would mean a lot of good people are terrorists, including those folks above that "frightened" these companies with losing business into change, huh?
Dammit, I just realized I just got sucked into the wrong argument again. It's turned into a feminist argument, which Gamergate was never about. I apologize to everyone here, and I'm backing out. I'm still trying to figure out how to make gamer news outlets more accountable for their reviews and potential paid ads as reviews.
No matter what happens, Happy Gaming.
So how about instead of arguing with and baiting the guy we ask him how he sees going about ending this? He is the one with the concerns with the status quo after all. So lets start a real discussion and try and leave our bait, ad hominums, and other assorted fallacies at home. Novel idea I know.
Okay Chris. How do we control the access to the journalists that AAA has? What is wrong with the current status quo? Why should we care when the Editors in Chief of these sites see nothing wrong? How are they so "corrupt" and unethical?