Bridges as Points of Conflict Rather Than Common Ground?

Other analyses of network bridges, like Gilad Lotan’s analysis of the 2014 Israel/Gaza conflict, interpret link bridges as an important site of common ground. In the Gamergate controversy, the two sides often linked to common sources for very different reasons.

Bridge 1: Stories About Ethics in Games Journalism

In the network graph, 75% of articles manually labeled as ethics and ad-related received links from both sides. Many of the articles shared by both sides were about the success of campaigns by Gamergate to get advertisers to pull online ads from publications whose actions and/or policies they deemed suspect. Both sides also linked to publications’ statements clarifying their ethics policies. Gamergate sources shared these articles as evidence of success — their social media and email campaigns were effecting change in the gaming journalism space, and their voices were being heard by powerful corporations like Intel. Anti-Gamergate sources agreed that Gamergate was being heard, but they contextualized Intel’s ad-pulling as the success of a persistent bullying campaign. They also linked much more than Gamergate did to an article by Leigh Alexander questioning whether Gamergate’s stated concerns about ethics were the most pressing issues facing the gaming industry. Gamergate also linked with less degrees of separation than anti-Gamergate to Ars Technica’s statement regarding allegations of collusion and a blog post about allegations of collusion among gaming journalists ruining careers. Each side attempted to put their own spin on major events that garnered press coverage and formal statement by journalists (i.e. ad-pulling) while not engaging with the issues that were claimed as major concerns by the other side.

Bridge 2: Stories About Changes in Gamer Culture

Another important theme of media coverage during GamerGate focused on changes in gaming demographics and culture. Both sides link to these “gamers are dead” articles. Gamergate points to them evidence of gaming journalists’ anti-gamer collusion, but anti-Gamergate groups disagreed. Instead, anti-Gamergate articles tended to frame those articles in terms of the diversification of gaming and the need for the predominately white male self-identified “gamer” demographic to make room for change to happen. Gamergate participants described the same articles as an attack on a gamer identity that had become a casualty of overly touchy “political correctness.”

One of the foundational arguments Gamergate uses to support allegations of conspiracy amongst gaming journalists is the cluster of “Gamers are Dead” articles that appeared on and around August 28th, 2014. This supposed threat to the “gamer identity” became a strong rallying cry for Gamergate to gather support, while the timing of the articles gave traction to accusations of journalists conspiring to advance a progressive agenda. Anti-Gamergate sources, in contrast, expressed excitement that gaming is becoming inclusive and that marginalized people have many more opportunities to participate and create.

Both sides link to the “Gamers are Dead” articles with approximately the same prevalence, however, although the cluster of “Gamers are Dead” articles is slightly more strongly linked to by anti-Gamergate sources. These articles represent common context — both sides are talking about them and their implications — but not common ground. While pro-Gamergate describe them as an attack on what was previously a cohesive identity, anti-Gamergate cites them as evidence of cultural evolution — certainly upheaval, but in a progressive direction.

Bridge 3: Stories About Online Harassment and GamerGate

Although some articles about online harassment exclusively received links from one side, other articles about online harassment are linked equally by pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate sources.

Articles written from a strongly pro-Gamergate perspective claim harassment victims are responsible for the harassment they faced and dispute the severity of death threats sent to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, among others. Some argue that feminist commentators and developers are leveraging threats for attention on the Internet. Other articles play to both sides, claiming that both sides are engaging in harassment and that the problem of harassment against women is beyond solving. Articles written from an anti-Gamergate perspective tend to strongly criticize the pro-Gamergate harassers as anti-feminist and argue that their grievances are groundless. When anti-Gamergate sources link to these articles, they take approximately the same viewpoint as the authors on the problem of harassment. On the other hand, pro-Gamergate sources either dispute the commentary when linking to an articles or engage in hand-wringing over the problem of harassment.

Rethinking the Meaning of Common Links during Media Conflict

In a conflict like Gamergate, sources that both sides of a dialogue have in common do not necessarily represent opinions both sides share, but they do represent things both sides care about. Even when they link to the same articles, each side may frame those links in very different ways. Links to articles about ethics in games journalism celebrated or lamented Gamergate’s early success. Links to stories about changes in gamer culture lamented or celebrated those changes. Finally, articles about online harassment received links for a variety of reasons, even within a given side.

So-called “hatelinking” — linking to articles with opinions or events that don’t promote one’s cause — may give networks the appearance of having conversations of common ground, but analysis of context and commentary reveals that these connections don’t necessarily represent meaningful cross-talk.

Even if the apparent bridges between networks in conflict can just be further evidence of conflict, we shouldn’t be too hasty to give up on the possibility of shared understanding. Even the most vigorous attempt to debunk a source shows that you take it seriously. If a hate link is the only way that someone can learn what the other side thinks, perhaps those connections are even more precious.