#GamerGate: Actually, it is about ethics...

Solve the #GamerGate puzzle
Source: atom.smasher.org

What is #GamerGate?  Is the statement that “actually, it’s about ethics in game journalism” true?  Is it a misogynistic attempt to rid the gaming industry of female writers and developers?  Is it about a heretofore mainly ignored subculture of introverted middle-class white males casting themselves into the spotlight?  Or is it the 2014 version of #RevengePorn?

#GamerGate purports itself to be a crusade for establishing journalism ethics in game reviews.  The movement was born out of a blog post by an ex-boyfriend (Eron Gjoni) of a female game developer (Zoe Quinn) in which Gjoni accused Quinn of cheating on him with various industry people including journalists to advance her career.  Some in the gaming community rallied around this perceived injustice and started a ruthless online campaign to ‘pay back’ Quinn for her alleged indiscretions.  After hacking Quinn’s social media accounts and doxxing her (posting her personal information online), this group of vigilante gamers decided to astroturf their efforts into a battle cry for ethics in gaming journalism. 

Source: www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

While #GamerGate wasn’t conceived from a real interest in ethics reform of gamer journalism, it doesn’t mean that no reform is necessary. Bloggers may consider themselves to be journalists whether they are self-publishing on WordPress or are part of a more mainstream publication but do they follow the basic tenets of the journalism code of ethics?

In the “Act Independently” section of the code of ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), it outlines how journalists need to avoid conflicts of interest including advertorials (advertisements that are disguised as editorial) and providing favorable treatment to advertisers.

Many of these game review sites rely heavily on advertising from the major game corporations.  And as is standard industry practice, many reviewers are given games for free to review.  Does this lead to an insurmountable conflict of interest?  A writer for The Guardian explains that “in a well-run media organisation, advertising and editorial are separated, everyone understands the boundaries.”   At Time magazine, we referred to this as the separation of church and state.  When the lines between edit and advertising get blurred, ethical boundaries tend to be crossed.

Similarly, blogs and vlogs by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) such as Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian have come under fire for pushing a political agenda for personal gain. While both have garnered fame and, most likely, profit from being the feminist voice on this issue, does that render their beliefs unjust?  In the “Seek Truth and Report It” section of the SPJ code of ethics, journalists are encouraged to:

• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government.

In that vein, yes, Quinn and Sarkeesian are progressing the issue ethically. SJWs invoke Communitarianism, where community interests trump individual interest in the quest for social justice.

#GamerGate Gender Wars
Source: thelibertypapers.org

What is not ethical is the doxxing of Quinn and other females in the gaming industry.  The gamers demand ethics and transparency yet, they themselves hide behind fake profiles.  They release personal information about the SJWs not to further a conversation but to stifle it.  Just like with Jackie, the UVA student profiled by Rolling Stone magazine, the doxxing is done to intimidate anyone with an opposing viewpoint.  Even though there are differences between Jackie & Quinn - Jackie is a private citizen alleged to be the victim of a violent sexual crime while Quinn is a public figure discussing her personal involvement with #GamerGate - the reasons for doxxing are the same: to silence an opposing viewpoint through threats and intimidation.  These gamers misappropriate Mill’s Utilitarian Theory which states that “in the utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the group”. (Patterson and Wilkins, p. 10) 

Devin Faraci compares #GamerGate members to KKK
Source: MundaneMatt

If those who did the doxxing truly believed that their actions are ethical, they wouldn’t hide behind fake profiles and the comfort of anonymity that the internet provides.  They also wouldn’t astroturf their movement to look like a grass-roots uprising of ethics reform when it was a coordinated effort to regain control of their previously insular community and stifle all other voices.  Those behind the #GamerGate movement want to hold others to a higher standard than they hold themselves to.  This double standard contradicts journalism ethics.  Bloggers also used fake profiles to spy on and infiltrate the #GamerGate community.  While this seems very unethical, it is not against the SPJ code of ethics as it enabled the bloggers to uncover vital information that would otherwise not be made known.

Gamasutra is the free online version of Game Developer Magazine which relies on advertising to support itself.  Intel pulled its ads from Gamasutra after being deluged with complaints from the #GamerGate community.  This caught the attention of the mainstream press and brought Intel some unwanted coverage.  Intel later released a statement to correct any misconception that it supports misogyny.  If Intel had applied Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance, which asks decision-makers to examine the situation objectively from all points of view, they could have avoided the unflattering publicity.  It would seem that Intel reacted too quickly to customer complaints without giving due diligence to the issue at large.  

What is #GamerGate?  While that is still hotly debated, what we can all hopefully agree on, is that #GamerGate has brought us a much needed conversation about ethics in this new media age.

The Interview – A case study in ethics & free speech

The Interview is a comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco about an entertainment reporter and producer who are recruited by the CIA to assassinate North Korea leader Kim Jung-un.  It is the first major motion picture from an US studio to depict the assassination of a living foreign leader.  Rogen and his collaborator, Evan Goldberg, pitched the idea to Sony in 2010 as Kill Kim Jung-il.  After Kim Jung-il’s death, the concept was reworked to focus on his son and new North Korea leader, Kim Jung-un.  It was smooth sailing at Sony until a teaser trailer was released in June. 

Yahoo Movies Jun 11, 2014 (Source: YouTube)

While some executives at Sony in Japan voiced their concern over the depiction of a violent assassination of a living leader, very few concessions were made to the original concept and working script. Later that month, the North Korean foreign minister released a statement that said in part:

The U.S. has gone reckless in such provocative hysteria as bribing a rogue movie maker to dare hurt the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK. […] Absolutely intolerable is the distribution of such film in the U.S. as it is the most undisguised terrorism and a war action to deprive the service personnel and people of the DPRK of their mental mainstay and bring down its social system. […] Those who defamed our supreme leadership and committed the hostile acts against the DPRK can never escape the stern punishment to be meted out according to a law wherever they might be in the world. If the U.S. administration connives at and patronizes the screening of the film, it will invite a strong and merciless countermeasure.

Sony studio co-chairman Amy Pascal relayed a message to Rogen and Goldberg that Sony’s executives in Japan were demanding changes. Again, very few concessions were actually made except for ‘softening’ the scene where Kim Jong-un’s head takes a missile strike and an agreement to delay the release from the fall to Christmas Day. Artistic expression won out over artistic accountability. (Patterson and Wilkins, p. 260) Rogen and Franco embarked on a publicity tour and all is well until Sony gets hacked.

Hackers breach Sony's system (Source: whoismcaffe.com)

The hackers post four unreleased movies (including Annie) to pirate video download sites online.  They also subsequently post internal files (38 million in total) from Sony including employee information and executive emails.  Two weeks later, a group named the Guardians of Peace claimed responsibility and issued their demand – kill The Interview.  On December 16^th, an email claims that violence will befall if Sony releases the movie:

Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made.

The world will be full of fear.

Remember the 11th of September 2001.

We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time.

(If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)

Once this email was leaked online, some theaters started pulling out of the Christmas day release.  Sony then canceled the release of The Interview amid complaints from major theater chains in the USA and Canada.  The next day, Sony issued a press release:

In light of the desire by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film […] we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25th theatrical release.

Workers removing billboard poster announcing Christmas Day release
(Source: chicagotribune.com)

Almost immediately, Sony’s decision is met with staunch criticism of caving to terrorists (the hackers), to the loss of free speech, and to allowing outside interests to control them.  Everyone it seemed had an opinion including the US president:

“I think they made a mistake,” said Obama. “I wish they had spoken to me first. I would have told them, Do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”

Was Sony’s initial decision to cancel The Interview ethically sound?  Sony should have applied Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance which asks decision-makers to examine the situation objectively from all points of view (pov).  If they had, they probably wouldn’t have catered to Rogen and Goldberg and made a living foreign leader the subject of an assassination plot.  

Hackers' threats escalate
(Source: everythinglubbock.com)

Sony also wouldn’t have pulled the movie in such a knee-jerk reaction to the leak of their own files.  The FBI stated that there were no credible threats of violence to the movie theaters and some outlets claimed that Sony pulled the plug before they could even object.  It would appear that in both instances, Sony was focused on their own needs/pov.  

Aaron Sorkin, a Hollywood screenwriter, wrote an op-ed, “The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press”, published by The New York Times that decried the press’ zeal in publishing Sony’s hacked documents.  Sorkin opined that there was nothing news-worthy in the leaded documents and that it was published because some details were ‘juicy’.   Is Sorkin right - did ratings trump ethics?  The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics state that journalists must:

• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

Most of the people affected by the publishing of leaked documents were public figures. The ones most hurt were the rank and file employees who had their social security #’s and other personal information posted by the hackers. Journalists didn’t facilitate or repeat those details. 

Leaked spreadsheet showing Sony executive salary & bonuses
(Source: hollywoodreporter.com)

Salary information on the actors should be public and generally, it is widely reported.  Charlize Theron was able to negotiate a 10M$ raise after the gender pay gap was made public. The gender pay gap isn’t unique to the entertainment industry, it’s endemic to all industries in the US. The only instances where the pay gap is narrow is when salaries are public.  President Obama had introduced legislation to help close the gender pay gap; having actual evidence from a major corporation showing how widespread this issue is, is definitely news-worthy and deserves to be published. Part of the journalist code of ethics state that journalists have an obligation to “serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.”

Sorkin further believes that the Motion Picture Association of America along with the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild should band together and back up Sony, calling it a “NATO rule”.  Unfortunately, no studio or entertainment organization came to Sony’s defense.  Sorkin (and later actor George Clooney) was hoping that the philosophy of Communitarianism, where community interests trump individual interest in the quest for social justice, would be the catalyst for involvement.  Instead, it would seem that self-interest prevailed.

Sony reversed their decision in response to the criticism mentioned above.  They worked together with Google to get it released online and allowed independent theaters to pick it up for Christmas Day release.

Theater worker in Colorado updating the marquee
(Source: denverpost.com)

This move was heralded by many as a victory for freedom and free speech.  President Obama praised Sony for their reversal:

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, "As the president made clear, we are a country that believes in free speech, and the right of artistic expression. The decision made by Sony and participating theaters allows people to make their own choices about the film, and we welcome that outcome."

Mill’s Utilitarian Theory espouses that “in the utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the group”. (Patterson and Wilkins, p. 10)  In this case, the harm to Sony from further cyber attacks was deemed to be less important than free speech and artistic expression.

Similarly, Ross’s Pluralism theory states that there are multiple competing values, not one ultimate value, to be considered.  Freedom of speech is one value.  The interest of the public is another.  Other competing values include: Sony’s bottom line; the artistic expression of the entertainers; diplomatic relations; and common decency.

If Sony had utilized Bok’s ethical decision-making guidelines:

1. How do you feel about the actions?
2. Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?
3. How will others respond to the proposed act?

during the making of the movie, they could have avoided all of this drama.  

Target-ing the teen mom: Do Data Mining and Targeted Marketing need its own code of ethics?

New York Times Magazine cover Feb 16, 2012

Case Study: How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did. 

A Minneapolis father walked into his local Target store incensed that the store has mailed his teenage daughter baby coupons.  Outraged, the father demanded to know why Target would promote teenage pregnancy.  The store manager apologized on the spot and followed up with a call a few days later to reiterate the apology.  Instead of getting a hostile father on the phone, this time the manager encountered one who is himself apologetic.  The father explained that Target was right, his teenage daughter was pregnant and due in August.

How did Target know the teen was pregnant?  Data.  In 2002, Target decided that it needed to change the shopping habits of its customers to get them to buy a wider selection of items.  They set off to see if they could do that with pregnant women whose emotions over the impending happy event might sway them from making more considered purchases to more impulse buys.  By analyzing baby registries and the shopping habits of those women, Target was able to build a predictive model.

Slideshare.net: Technoledge Mar 20, 2103

Target assigns each customer a Guest ID based on credit card # or email address.  It then tracks purchases both in store and online.  It will send emails to encourage online shopping and print receipt coupons to trigger brick & mortar purchases.  The more information it has, the more intelligent it can determine which offer will generate the desired response.

These offers are personalized to each shopper to boost sales.  Since customers are getting offers and coupons matched to their own personal shopping habits, this should be a win-win.  Instead, many consumers don’t feel honored that a store knows so much about them, rather they feel creeped out by the violation of privacy.

Slate.com June 9, 2014

In the case of the pregnant teen, the store manager sought to assuage the father by apologizing and offering to look into the matter.  Since the father was unaware that his own daughter was pregnant, his outrage turned into sheepishness.  Should it have though?  Was it a violation of privacy to mail baby product coupons to a teenager?  Or to anyone who hasn’t informed you of their pregnancy?  The store manager focused on the father’s emotion and attempted to use rationality to calm him.  It worked because the father’s emotions were redirected when he discovered the truth.  But just as easily, the father could have objected to his daughter’s privacy being violated.   In that instance, the store manager was ill-equipped to handle it as details of Target’s targeted marketing wasn’t public.

To counter these types of incidents, Target decided to camouflage their targeted offers by mixing in totally irrelevant offers in the mailings.

Source: Sarandipity blog

The example given is that among the baby items would be ads for lawn mowers and wine.  Target felt that expectant mothers then wouldn’t know that they were being targeted and would be more likely to be happy to receive coupons that they could use.  (No outrage over advertising alcohol to pregnant women?  Seems that would raise some eyebrows.) 

While this undoubtedly seemed like a brilliant marketing tactic to Target management, it raises some ethical questions.  Is it acceptable to intentionally deceive the public in order to boost sales?

No.  Target actually created an even bigger risk by hiding their intent.  By not being transparent, people would then wonder what else Target was hiding.  Confucius termed this Everyday Morality: a person who is ethical about little things will be ethical about big things.  The same can be assumed about a corporation.  If they intentionally hide their intent when it comes to offering coupons, are they being fair and honest in other areas?

In “Media Ethics” by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, we learn about various philosophical approaches to ethics.  While data mining and targeted marketing are relatively new, privacy and people’s expectations of privacy are not.  "Philosophers assert that the commodification of private information erodes the core of both individual autonomy and authentic community.” (p. 110-111)

According to Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Latanya Sweeney, there is no privacy any more with the data being collected.  While companies always claim to be anonymizing the data that is collected, Professor Sweeney proved that with just 3 pieces of data (gender, zip code and date of birth), anonymized data can actually only belong to one individual.  In addition to this loss of privacy, what are other dangers of targeted marketing?

Targeted marketing further serves to divide the populace into class structures.  Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel opines: “At a time of rising inequality, the marketing of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives.”  (Patterson and Wilkins, p. 63)

The slide from Big Data - Marketing Gone Mad? by Technoledge points out how invasive data collection has become and what the purpose of it is. (slideshare.net Mar 20, 2013) 

Codes of ethics already exist for many professions such as Advertising and Public Relations which were covered in previous blog posts.  Should a code of ethics be created for data mining and targeted marketing?  While there are existing privacy laws (which Target very carefully stays within), consumers are still uneasy about how companies collect data and what they do with it.  A new code of ethics should borrow from the PRSA Code of Ethics:

• Preserve the integrity of the process of communication.
• Be honest and accurate in all communications.
• Avoid deceptive practices.
• Safeguard the confidences and privacy rights of present, former, and prospective clients and employees.

And it should leverage the bait & switch guideline from the American Advertising Federation's code of ethics:

• Advertising shall not offer products or services for sale unless such offer constitutes a bona fide effort to sell the advertising products or services and is not a device to switch consumers to other goods or services, usually higher priced.

In general, when building this code, the writers should employ Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance and have the decision makers examine the situation objectively from all points of view.

Dogbert follows an "eye for an eye" philosophy.