How Gamergate foreshadowed the toxic hellscape that the internet has now become
A new CNN series 'Twitter: Breaking the Bird' follows the insider story behind the meteoric rise and eventual sale of the revolutionary app featuring the voices of the founders themselves. The four-part series airs on Sundays at 10pm ET/PT.
It's not uncommon these days to hear the internet described as a hellscape.
Hate speech proliferates in online spaces. Algorithms designed to maximize user engagement amplify divisive content that inevitably leaves us outraged. Disinformation and misinformation spread on social media at rates seemingly impossible to contain.
If that weren't enough, bad-faith actors exploit these dynamics, distorting reality for part of the population and deepening political divides.
People who were paying close attention to certain corners of the internet saw this reality coming more than a decade ago in Gamergate, in which an angry online mob waged a virulent harassment campaign against women and diversity in the video game industry.
Gamergate was one of the earliest indications that what happened online could have major implications offline — and that a few people who understood the mechanics of the internet could manipulate it to advance a nefarious agenda.
Those who experienced the harassment firsthand warned that if not taken seriously, the behaviors underlying Gamergate would fester.
In the years since, as some experts and observers see it, social media platforms on which Gamergate transpired failed to adequately combat toxic content and online abuse, while lawmakers, traditional media outlets and much of the public failed to see its relevance beyond the world of video games.
From flooding the zone to the use of memes, the tactics once employed by a niche community of gamers are all too familiar today — they've since developed into a political strategy that's routinely used in the halls of power.
To use a popular internet shorthand, 'everything is Gamergate.'
On August 16, 2014, a 24-year-old male programmer posted a more than 9,000-word tirade about the dissolution of his relationship with video game developer Zoë Quinn. The rambling account contained screenshots of their private correspondences and accused Quinn, among several allegations, of sleeping with a journalist for the gaming site Kotaku in exchange for a positive review.
'There was no proof of this supposed illegitimately obtained review, just repetition of the Manifesto's accusations mixed with such conspiratorial conjecture that it would make someone wearing a tinfoil hat instantly sprout another, tinier tinfoil hat on top of it,' Quinn wrote in 'Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life.'
In reality, the reporter never even reviewed the game, and Kotaku said at the time that its leadership team found 'no compelling evidence' that the writer had traded favorable coverage for sex.
But the ex-boyfriend's rant quickly attracted the attention of online forum 4chan users, who seized on the alleged relationship between Quinn and the Kotaku writer. The events mutated into a leaderless harassment campaign known as Gamergate, eventually moving from 4chan to more mainstream social media platforms.
Anonymous gamers made rape and death threats against Quinn, feminist gaming critic Anita Sarkeesian, game developer Brianna Wu and others who advocated for a more inclusive gaming industry, and released private information about them. The campaign's participants also pressured companies to stop advertising on gaming sites that they viewed as critical of gamer culture.
Gamergate activists claimed they were concerned about ethics in games journalism. But really they seemed to be responding to a perceived loss of status, said Adrienne Massanari, a scholar who researches digital culture and author of 'Gaming Democracy: How Silicon Valley Leveled Up the Far Right.'
For a long time, video games were seen as the domain of young White men. When that was challenged, whether by a game developer subverting industry norms or a woman calling out stereotypical female characters, a core contingent of gamers saw it as political correctness run amok, Massanari wrote in her book. And that sentiment soon expanded beyond video games.
'There was a story on offer pretty quickly after Gamergate started gaining traction that it wasn't just about games,' she told CNN. 'It wasn't just that you were no longer the center of a pop culture universe. You're no longer the center of political life.'
Gamergate wasn't the first instance of harassment in gaming communities, but it was the first time it reached that scale, Massanari wrote in her book.
What was notable about Gamergate, she told CNN, was the internet savvy of its participants, who manipulated social media to perpetuate abuse and promote their cause.
Put simply, they gamed the system.
On Twitter, for instance, Gamergaters flooded the mentions of particular users as a form of harassment.
They also used Twitter's hashtag and retweet functions to control public narrative. By generating a volume of activity on the platform, they could make it seem like a particular message was trending, even if only a small group of users was behind the posts.
One notable example was #NotYourShield, which purportedly represented women and minority supporters of Gamergate who were tired of feminist activists claiming to speak on their behalf. Chat logs later revealed that #NotYourShield was not an organic social media trend or movement but rather a campaign orchestrated by a small number of 4chan users using false online identities, seemingly in an attempt to defend Gamergate against criticisms of racism and misogyny.
While much of the harassment and public campaign happened on mainstream social media such as Twitter and Reddit, Massanari said Gamergate was coordinated on more niche platforms — an organizing strategy that, up until then, had been applied primarily by pro-democracy, social justice activists.
'Gamergate was that moment when people started realizing that you weren't going to necessarily see activism always be this net positive thing,' Massanari added.
The extent of harassment and abuse that Gamergate's victims experienced — forcing some to leave their homes and go into hiding — showed just how badly tech companies had failed to protect their users, Massanari and others said.
As some in the tech industry see it, Gamergate activists were able to weaponize social media precisely because of how those platforms were designed. The problems, in other words, weren't a bug but a feature.
Silicon Valley leaders, committed to upholding free speech, were overly permissive in their approach to online content, said Jason Goldman, who served as Twitter's first vice president of product and later as chief digital officer in the Obama White House. And because they were mostly White men who didn't experience the online harassment that women and minorities did, Goldman said they were naive about the possibility that their platforms could cause harm.
'There weren't enough people around who personally had skin in the game,' he said.
Leslie Miley, an engineer who worked at Twitter from 2013 to 2015, said he and others in the company started to recognize how the platform was being misused, but Twitter lacked the robust infrastructure needed to effectively combat the toxic behavior.
'We're playing a global game of Whac-a-Mole, and we need an army of octopus to do it,' he said. 'And guess what? We don't have an army of octopus.'
In response to those challenges, Twitter built out teams on user services and trust and safety, as well as an extensive policy framework around content moderation. But executives were also reluctant to take bold actions — such as banning certain accounts or shutting down some discussions — that might reduce Twitter's user base and therefore negatively affect the business, according to Miley.
'They were allowed to organize, they were allowed to spread, and they were allowed to create content much longer than they should have,' he said, referring to Gamergate activists.
Faced with mounting pressure, Twitter later instituted more aggressive policies that permanently banned accounts for repeated violations of its rules. (Such accounts were restored en masse during Elon Musk's takeover of the platform, which is now known as X. After advertisers and critics expressed concerns, however, X reported last fall that it was continuing to police harmful content, including suspended accounts and removing and labeling posts that violated its rules. CNN has reached out to X for comment.)
Reddit, Massanari wrote in her book, became less willing to tolerate far-right speech over the years. The company went on to ban more than 2,000 subreddits that it said promoted hate based on identity or vulnerability, among other changes to its content policy. Recently, the platform also announced it would begin warning users who upvote violating content. A Reddit spokesperson told CNN that current company policy prohibits hateful and violent content on the platform.
But social media companies still struggle to balance the need to police abuse on their platforms, their foundational values of giving everyone a voice and the risk of alienating some users, Massanari said. In some instances, content policy changes have been met with outrage and backlash from users who had grown accustomed to digital spaces with few restrictions.
'If you imagine this big aircraft carrier that's turning, it's very hard once all those norms have been set up to start incrementally trying to reshape that space,' she said.
Gamergate's impact went beyond the gaming universe.
It mobilized a new generation of disaffected, young men into becoming politically active, Massanari wrote in her book.
The movement found sympathetic allies in far-right media figures and internet personalities, many of whom built their names by championing the Gamergate cause, per Massanari.
Pro-Gamergate influencers, in turn, exposed their followers to other political ideas, including a broad suspicion about contemporary institutions that they viewed as too beholden to identity politics and political correctness, she wrote.
Political strategist Steve Bannon understood the power of this dynamic acutely.
'You can activate that army,' Bannon told Bloomberg reporter Joshua Green in 2017. 'They come in through Gamergate or whatever and then get turned onto politics and Trump.'
But as Charlie Warzel put it in a 2019 piece for The New York Times Opinion, Gamergate's 'most powerful legacy is as proof of concept of how to wage a post-truth information war.'
Gamergate gave rise to a pattern of sowing confusion and chaos in the information landscape, Massasnari said. Participants elevated new conspiracies and used memes and ironic rhetoric to send coded signals, allowing them to claim plausible deniability about troubling aspects of the movement.
Traditional newsrooms struggled to cover these communities and forces responsibly, giving equal weight to 'both sides' even if one side wasn't arguing or acting in good faith, according to a report from Whitney Phillips, a scholar and author of 'This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture.' In some cases, they inadvertently amplified extremist ideology.
In an eerily prescient article for Deadspin in 2014, Kyle Wagner predicted that this pattern would become the future of political and cultural battles.
'What we have in Gamergate is a glimpse of how these skirmishes will unfold in the future—all the rhetorical weaponry and siegecraft of an internet comment section brought to bear on our culture, not just at the fringes but at the center,' he wrote at the time. 'What we're seeing now is a rehearsal, where the mechanisms of a toxic and inhumane politics are being tested and improved.'
Over the years, the Gamergate playbook would be replicated in conspiracies such as Pizzagate and QAnon, as well as the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The legacies of Gamergate are complicated and far-reaching.
In one sense, per some scholars, Gamergate was a battle between an increasingly diverse society and a group of White men who felt threatened over those societal shifts. At least within the realm of video games, Gamergate supporters seem to be losing: The gaming industry workforce is significantly more diverse than the US workforce more broadly, and studios and developers are adopting more inclusive storylines and characters.
Still, the backlash against diversity persists — in video games and on a much grander scale, in President Donald Trump's elimination of federal DEI programs.
Meanwhile, Gamergate did force more people in the tech industry to reckon with abuse and harassment. And while major companies have rolled back some efforts to curb harmful content on their platforms, others in the tech sector are building new social technologies with the lessons of Gamergate in mind, said Evan 'Rabble' Henshaw-Plath, a member of Twitter's founding team.
For Henshaw-Plath, the enduring lesson of Gamergate was that social media platforms as they were originally envisioned were only as good as the people using them.
'What happened with Gamergate is inherent to what happens when you take human nature and you give them a tool that potentially puts the entirety of humanity in the same conversation,' they said. 'All of humanity's problems, dynamics and difficulties can get amplified if we design a system that doesn't account for them.'
But that doesn't mean a toxic internet is inevitable, said Henshaw-Plath and others.
Regulators can implement rules to improve content moderation and mandate transparency by social media platforms. Tech companies can diversify their top ranks to help ensure their platforms are designed to be safe for everyone. And people in the industry can create new systems that put more power in the hands of users — like what X competitors Bluesky and Mastodon are doing.
For many users, social media platforms were once an exciting, and even transformative, space for community. With some radical reimagining, Henshaw-Plath said, they might experience that feeling again.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After Trump cuts, National Weather Service is hiring. What about Florida?
As an active hurricane season looms for Florida, the National Weather Service is hiring. The Trump administration, through billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has slashed workforces in multiple federal agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which encompasses the NWS and the National Hurricane Center. With concerns rising over whether the stripped-down agencies will be enough to handle increasingly dangerous weather in the U.S., CNN has reported that the NWS has received permission to temporarily lift the hiring freeze and hire about 125 new meteorologists and specialists for its forecast offices around the country. The NWS is also hoping to continue hiring more people under a public safety exemption, CNN said. ➤ Weather alerts via text: Sign up to get updates about current storms and weather events by location As of June 3, any hiring is still in the planning stages. NWS spokesperson Erica Grow Cei told Newsweek that the agency is planning to hire additional staff members to "stabilize" the department to address people who took the voluntary early retirement option. In May, USA TODAY reported that the weather service was working to transfer meteorologists from well-staffed offices to fill 155 positions where they're needed. "Additionally, a targeted number of permanent, mission-critical field positions will soon be advertised under an exception to the department-wide hiring freeze to further stabilize front-line operations," Cei said. More than 550 of the 4,800 weather service employees have been dismissed, retired or accepted incentive offers to step down. Many of the country's 122 local weather service forecast offices, usually staffed 24 hours day, seven days a week, were left shorthanded with staff reductions from 20-40% and scrambling to cover staffing and maintain the usual quality and number of measurements. Several offices were forced to end or reduce weather balloon launches, which can reduce the agency's ability to predict weather, and CNN reported on May 2 that 30 NWS offices no longer had a lead meteorologist. NOAA, which studies Earth's atmosphere, oceans and climate, has also canceled events in a public awareness campaign on the importance of early preparation. 'This has never happened before. We've always been an agency that has provided 24/7 service to the American public,' Tom Fahy, legislative director for the National Weather Service Employees Organization, told ABC News. 'The risk is extremely high — if cuts like this continue to the National Weather Service, people will die.' The Trump administration laid off an estimated 650 NOAA employees in February in the name of cutting government spending, including two flight directors and an electronic engineer at NOAA's Office of Aircraft Operations, home of the NOAA Hurricane Hunters. That could affect the agency's ability to conduct the twice-daily flights necessary during a significant hurricane threat, according to former Hurricane Hunter and cofounder of Weather Underground Jeff Masters, especially if one or more becomes unavailable or sick. NOAA employees have been told to expect a further 50% reduction in its staff of almost 12,000. Hurricane season fears: Will federal cuts and state budget battle put Florida's hurricane readiness in peril? The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season began Sunday, June 1, and runs through Sunday, Nov. 30. However, storms can and do occur outside of those dates. AccuWeather is predicting the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season could bring: Named storms: 13 to 18 Hurricanes: 7-10 Major hurricanes: 3-5 Direct U.S. impacts: 3-6 NOAA is predicting a 60% chance of an above-normal season, a 30% chance of a near-normal season and a 10% chance for a below-normal season. Forecasters predict: Named storms: 13-19 Hurricanes: 6-10 Major hurricanes: 3-5 Colorado State University meteorologists predict: 17 named storms 9 hurricanes 4 major hurricanes Dr. Ryan Truchelut of WeatherTiger hedged his bets and predicted that the 2025 season has a 50-50 chance of landing in the ranges of: 16-21 tropical storms 7-9 hurricanes 3-4 major hurricanes Contributing: Dinah Voyles Pulver, USA TODAY, and Cheryl McCloud, USA TODAY NETWORK This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: National Weather Service to hire about 125 to replace DOGE losses
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's New Medicaid Denialism
Congressional Republicans claim to have achieved something truly miraculous. Their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they argue, would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid spending over 10 years without causing any Americans to lose health care—or, at least, without making anyone who loses health care worse off. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by imposing Medicaid work requirements, the bill would eventually increase the uninsured population by at least 8.6 million. At first, Republican officials tried to defend this outcome on the grounds that it would affect only lazy people who refuse to work. This is clearly untrue, however. As voluminous research literature shows, work requirements achieve savings by implementing burdensome paperwork obligations that mostly take Medicaid from eligible beneficiaries, not 25-year-old guys who prefer playing video games to getting a job. Perhaps for that reason, some Republicans in Washington are now making even more audacious claims. On CNN over the weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought insisted that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' Likewise, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, recently told voters at a town hall, 'Everyone says that Medicaid is being cut, people are going to see their benefits cut; that's not true.' After one attendee shouted, 'People will die,' Ernst replied, 'We all are going to die,' and later doubled down on her comment on social media, attempting to equate concern that Medicaid cuts could harm people with believing in the tooth fairy. Officials such as Vought and Ernst have not provided a detailed explanation of their blithe assurances. But there is one center of conservative thought that has attempted to defend these claims: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Last week, it published an editorial headlined 'The Medicaid Scare Campaign.' The thesis is that the Medicaid cuts would 'improve healthcare by expanding private insurance options, which provide better access and health outcomes than Medicaid.' This would be, as they say, huge if true: The GOP has found a way to give low-income Americans better health care while saving hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. The timing is even more remarkable, given that this wondrous solution has come along at precisely the moment when congressional Republicans are desperate for budget savings to partially offset the costs of a regressive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Sadly, a close reading of The Wall Street Journal's editorial reveals that no such miracle is in the offing. Instead, the argument relies on a series of misunderstandings and non sequiturs to obscure the obvious fact that cutting Medicaid would make poor people sicker and more likely to die. [Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid] The editorial begins by acknowledging a recent study's conclusion that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act reduced mortality by 2.5 percent among low-income American adults. This would imply that taking Medicaid away from people would cause many of them to die. Not so fast, the editorial insists: 'The 2.5% difference in mortality for low-income adults between the expansion and non-expansion states wasn't statistically significant when disabled adults were included.' The implication is that the lifesaving effect of the Medicaid expansion disappears if you include disabled adults. In fact, Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economist and a co-author of the study, told me that the reason the study excluded disabled adults is that they were already eligible for public health insurance before the expansion. The way to measure the effect of a change is to focus on the population that was treated to the change. So either the Wall Street Journal editorial board is misleading its audience intentionally or it does not understand statistics. (Decades of Journal editorials provide ample grounds for both explanations.) The editorial then suggests that Obamacare has not overcome other social factors that are causing people to die: 'What's clear is that the ObamaCare expansion hasn't reduced deaths among lower-income, able-bodied adults. U.S. life expectancy remains about the same as it was in 2014 owing largely to increased deaths among such adults from drug overdoses and chronic diseases.' This passage, like the previous one, is intended to sound like a claim that giving people access to medical care does not reduce their likelihood of suffering a premature death. But that is not really what it's saying. The editorial is merely noting that the drug epidemic and other factors worked against the effects of the Medicaid expansion. Presumably, if the government had started throwing people off their health insurance at the same time that the drug-overdose epidemic was surging, then life expectancy would have gotten even worse. The article goes on to explain that Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private insurance does. That is absolutely correct: In the United States, Medicaid is the cheapest existing way to give people access to medical care. The editorial laments that Medicaid recipients have worse outcomes than people on private insurance do. But the Republican plan isn't to put Medicaid recipients on private insurance, which would cost money. The plan is to take away even their extremely cheap insurance and leave them with nothing. (Well, not nothing: The editorial notes that the bill would double 'the health-savings account contribution limit to $17,100 from $8,550 for families earning up to $150,000.' For reference, in most states, a four-person household must earn less than $45,000 a year to be eligible for Medicaid.) Finally, the editorial asserts, 'The GOP bill is unlikely to cause many Americans to lose Medicaid coverage.' Here is where I would analyze the editorial's support for this remarkable claim, but there is none. The sentence just floats by itself in a sea of text that bears no relationship to it. Indeed, the editorial doesn't even attempt to explain why the official Congressional Budget Office estimate is dramatically wrong. Nor does it engage with the mountain of evidence showing that people who obtain Medicaid coverage tend, naturally enough, to be better off as a result. The near-universal belief that being able to see a doctor and buy medicine makes you healthier is the kind of presumption that would take extraordinary evidence to refute. The Wall Street Journal editorial offers none at all. Advocates of the House bill have cultivated an aura of condescension toward anybody who states its plain implications. But even the most detailed attempt to substantiate their position consists entirely of deflections and half-truths. If this is the best case that can be made for worrying about the GOP's plan for Medicaid, then Americans should be worried indeed. Article originally published at The Atlantic


The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rising: June 3, 2025
Shock poll: CNN admits Trump has massive advantage on the economy! Robby Soave | RISING Robby Soave delivers radar on the latest CNN polling that suggest that Trump administration still holds an 8-point lead on the economy. Steve Bannon Calls For Lindsey Graham's Arrest During Chris Cuomo Interview | RISING Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss Steve Bannon's criticism of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on NewsNation's, 'CUOMO,' amid escalating tension between Ukraine and Russia. Jasmine Crockett says she'll seek impeachment inquiry against Trump if she wins Oversight spot | RISING Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) vowing to 'at least' launch an impeachment inquiry into President Trump if she becomes House Oversight Committee chair. Stephen Miller Torches Ice Agents Over Low Deportations: Report | RISING Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is reportedly furious that ICE is prioritizing violent criminals for deportation over any and all undocumented people living in the U.S. Charlie Kirk, Conservatives RAGE At Sesame Street PRIDE MONTH Post | RISING Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss Charlie Kirk and other conservatives slamming PBS's 'Sesame Street' over celebrating Pride month. Open-AI model goes rogue, refuses shut down request: Theresa Payton intv | RISING Theresa Payton, the CEO of Fortalice Solutions, weighs in on the dangers of artificial intelligence on the heels of a recent incident in which an AI bot did not adhere to kill switch. Elon Musk blasts Bono over USAID comments on Joe Rogan podcast | RISING Robby and Lindsey Granger react to Bono's interview on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast in which the singer claim maby people have already died from DOGE's USAID cuts. Tinder's new height filter sparks fiery debate | RISING Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger react to dating app Tinder testing a new feature that will allow its premium members to list height as a preference in their profile settings.