British Government Will Let Manhunt 2 Decision Stand

March 16, 2008 -
On Friday GamePolitics reported that, following a months-long appeal process, the controversial Manhunt 2 had been cleared for sale in the U.K.

GamesIndustry.biz has added a bit to the saga, receiving word from the British government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport that it would not intervene in the Video Appeals Committee's ruling on the Manhunt 2 case. A spokesperson told GI.biz:
The classification of Manhunt 2 is a matter for the BBFC and the Video Appeals Committee. It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence of any link between playing computer games and violent behaviour in real life...

The Prime Minister asked Dr Tanya Byron to lead a review to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to help prevent children from being exposed to harmful or inappropriate material in videogames and on the internet, and to make recommendations for improvements or additional action. Dr Byron's review will be published shortly and Ministers will give careful consideration to any recommendations then.

Comments

Except they haven't actually acknowledged that.

At least they have their facts straight.

MonkeyThumbs you also forgot to mention they do not get any funding from the Government what-so-ever.

Aye, and here's the rub: by Government, I'm pretty sure we Brits are merely referring to what you might call the executive branch. That's what is known as Government over here. We aren't set up in the same way as the USA, in which the three branches are employed. In that way, we have independent courts - that is to say, independent from Downing Street. Now, if you want to argue semantics…

Furthermore, if you're going on about checks and balances, hasn't this ordeal only proved that the UK has stringent checks and balances? MH2 now will be sold at retail in the UK after all.

So much for a Judge Dredd system… although I do commend the relevance of the reference, as this is exactly the type of issue 2000 AD would rail against.

@ StealthKnight: And exactly when did the Government intervene in the MH2 ratings process?

Erik & StealthKnight:

So what say do you think the government has exactly? They set guidelines for any body they give the force of law. How those guidelines are applied, who works for the company and any individual ratings are all seperate from government.

So StealthKnight, tell me exactly how the government intervenes in the ratings of mediums again? Please note that saying "they could" isn't an answer. At the point that they do you can be pretty sure the BBFC will say something publically and the newspapers will pounce on it. Also, if the government ever starts doing so, at THAT point you can claim it is not independant, not before.

A government official acknowledging, that there is no evidence of any link between games an violent behaviour, is definitely a new one.

Some won't let this rest, but at least the government is giving a "let it go, it's ok"

Finally. I bet nobody cares about it anymore.

its a shame the game isn't really any good.... but yay!

I really must say that with all this violence stuff and kids. I always pictured it as and will protect what future kids I might have from violent materal not because critics think it will turn my kids into blood thursty killers.

But because it might scare them or dusturb them....maybe give them those scary nightmares. That's how I always pictured "protecting" childern from violent media. I know the critics spin it as totally something else.

But I do know that when some kids are exposed to exessive media violence....expect them to maybe have nightmares and be scared of "the boogey man",

"The classification of Manhunt 2 is a matter for the BBFC and the Video Appeals Committee."

Nice of you to make that statement.

However....

"British Government Will Let Manhunt 2 Decision Stand"

"The Prime Minister asked Dr Tanya Byron to lead a review to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to help prevent children from being exposed to harmful or inappropriate material in videogames and on the internet, and to make recommendations for improvements or additional action. Dr Byron’s review will be published shortly and Ministers will give careful consideration to any recommendations then."

These two statements very much imply that if the government WANTED to intervene, it COULD, thereby overriding the supposed independant decisions of the BBFC and perhaps event he VAC. Indeed, the government is actively seeking excuses, justifiable or not, to intervene and/or manipulate the decisions of the BBFC/VAC. After all, if the BBFC and/or VAC disagree with the supposed conclusions of those the government sought opinion from (expert or not), what would the outcome be? Would the government say "use these conclusions in your review and rating practices or else"? Or would they merely override decisions of the BBFC/VAC? Either way, it makes the BBFC/VAC worthless under the "independant" catagory.

So, while the spokesperson implied the BBFC/VAC are independant in one comment, in another, they implied the government still has the power to override and/or manipulate the BBFC's/VAC's methods.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Grats Britain - you too can now enjoy this subpar game.

When exactly is this Byron report coming?

It's always nice to see a reasonable response from the government.

Oh and Nightwng, the government makes the laws so of course they can intervene when they see fit (provided they can win a majority in a parliamentary vote). Media regulation was brought in by the government and the legislation can certainly be changed by them too. I for one will be interested to see whether the "Byron report" prompts any new government bills.

Gift.

Byron report due end of March.

@Luke

We beat the Government. That's why Dennis is covering the story. Not because we can now play the game.

@Canary Wundaboy

Thanks.

Well, sub-par or not, better than not letting anyone at all play it... right?

Essentially, this story could be summed up as follows:

Government: We will not interfere with the VAC's decision


Us: Yay! We beat the UK Government!

.....

This game sucks.

Well, I thought it was decent. At least enough to buy it on PSP last Halloween. Though not quite good enough for all the hype it received. The color filters during the killings piss me off, too.

Now all we have to do is un-ban all the games in Australia!

nightwing:

Keep on beating that drum.

Your first quote is a headline written by gp, not a written by the government. The second quote is about the Byron report, which is completely seperate to the issue of Manhunt 2. It is also equally likely to return a recommendation to remain where we are now than to make recommendations of any changes.

Your anti-UK agenda is getting weary.


DarrelBT:

Sums it up very nicely mate. Yeah it has been released, but it is still a pile of crap.

Meh, I'll reserve judgement for when that report comes out. They may be waiting to see if there's any "behavior modification concern" they can throw out to justify doing someone. Otherwise they'll just be seen as being reactionary.

Chuma,
Way to play the usual shell game.
If your eyes glaze over because of your brainwashing, it's not my problem.

My comments were straightforward. No dancing around needed.

The government says it ISN'T going to intervene. But that leaves the point that it COULD intervene. Which means it DOES have the power and Right to manipulate the rating system.

Very straightforward for those whose eyes don't glaze over by order of government brainwashing.

You want to lie to and mislead others by playing a shell game of "anti-UK" nonsense, that's your mental problem, not mine.

Also note that the second quote was NOT specific to Manhunt 2. It was in regards to the Byron report which may, or may not, be used by the government to further manipulate the rating system at any present or future time it so chooses. That is in evidence in the very comments quoted. If your eyes keep glazing over, then just skip all articles about government involvment in the rating system because you've already decided, based on prior orders by the government, to see the government as above reproach. No need to waste your time attempting to read any opposing views because you'll be unable to thanks to government brainwashing techniques, as evidenced by your ignoring the obvious facts.

Now be a good little tin robot and blather on about blind acceptance of government perfection.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Jabrwock,
True. But as all good little politicians learn, one doesn't have to follow the letter of the report to find a justification. Of course, not every politician will go to extreme lengths like some other individuals such as LaRouche or John Bruce, but if they can find a way, most politicians will use even the most innocent parts of research or reports to support their agendas.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwing:

The "Shell game" is a game with 3 shells and a pea where deception and conning is the key. I am not the one who is applying his own thoughts and opinions as fact...

As for pointing out your anti-uk agenda, I suggest people read your sudden ripping into other parts of UK culture which were entirely irrelevent to gaming trying to score cheap points in the previous thread.

"Also note that the second quote was NOT specific to Manhunt 2."
I believe I was the one who pointed this out to yourself when you tried to tie it in with the Manhunt2 comment and even a headline written by GP himself...

"It was in regards to the Byron report which may, or may not, be used by the government to further manipulate the rating system at any present or future time it so chooses."
The government can do that anyhow regardless of any report if it is passed in the House of Commons and then in the House of Lords, providing it doesn't suffer any appeals process and subsequent overturning from the courts. This is how the law-making process works.

"If your eyes keep glazing over, then just skip all articles about government involvment in the rating system because you’ve already decided, based on prior orders by the government, to see the government as above reproach."
Name ONE article on government involvement that gives any proof of such. ONE. I await your response. Also, I gave you a multiple list of reasons I don't trust this government and haven't voted for it since the 1997 elections, but I also gave you evidence as to why that is the case. You just are the kind of person who insists on a conspiracy without any evidence and uses the LACK of evidence as proof. This is a logical fallacy and again I point you at:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

"No need to waste your time attempting to read any opposing views because you’ll be unable to thanks to government brainwashing techniques, as evidenced by your ignoring the obvious facts."
Except that the government isn't involved in the BBFC and VAC but ofcourse you refuse to understand that and independance means nothing in your little world. Opposing views are welcomed if they are well thought out and some sort of proof to any claims provided. You however just argue like Jack Thompson and can't see it.

"Now be a good little tin robot and blather on about blind acceptance of government perfection."
And that one you can find under:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Nightwing:

Actually you know what? From here on in everytime you make some comment on something without any proof or trying to tell everyone there is a vast conspiracy by the government of the UK, Im just going to respond with "Citation Needed" in true Wikipedia style. It will save me a whole load of time wading through this badly thought out ranting.

Its about damn time, I just hope that they don't reverse their stance and in a few weeks we see a report saying that they changed their mind and blocked it anyways.

Chuma,
Citation has already been given from the quotes themselves. Indeed the entire quote from the spokesperson implies they COULD, if they wanted to, have intervened, as in manipulated the rating despite claims that the BBFC is independant.

It is very straightforward. The "shell game" is an analogy at attempts to divert attention using deceit and false leads. If the glaze over your vision is that serious, there is nothing I can do for you.

Indeed, it is clearly obvious that your "citation needed" remark is more shell gamery as it is apparent that you are unable to see any citation or quoted reference that the brainwashing you have experienced does not approve of. No one's opposing views will be satisfactory to you.

So. Let's recap for everyone else, since you will be unable to read these comments:

While GP's article title referred to the government's decision not to intervene, the actual quote came from Gameindustry.biz:

"The UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport has told GamesIndustry.biz that it has no plans at the moment to intervene in the planned release of Manhunt 2 in the UK."

Very straightforward.
"at the moment"

Very easy to read.

While that specific comment is directed regarding Manhunt 2, the additional comments clearly indicate that the use of the Byron Report may very well give the government a reason to intervene, in either present or future situations.

Gee. Not that difficult to read.

Obviously, others are waiting to see what the Byron report will produce and how the government will act THEN.

However, as I mentioned, the government has already indicated that, if they so desired, they could intervene NOW. Whether it's Manhunt 2 or not. They simply to choose to wait "at the moment".

Very straightforward. Just requires the ability to actually read the comments. But, hey, if ya can't get the information there in your mind, I can't help you.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Brandon,

Based on the quality of Manhunt 2, I don't think people are overly worried about the specific product. I think most people are worried that use, or even misuse, of the Byron Report will give the government reason to take a more active role in manipulating, or at least intervening, the BBFC and/or VAC.

In fact, I suspect more people will be upset if the government does decide after the Byron Report to intervene in the BBFC's/VAC's decision, not because they want to save Manhunt 2, but because of the intervention itself.

I think a lot of folks don't understand that it isn't about saving Manhunt 2 because, as a product, it deserves to be saved, but rather the issue of the government intervention over ANY product, Manhunt 2 only being the product in question at this time.

Even if, somehow, the Byron Report showed a negative opinion regarding media, I think there would still be a massive uproar over the government reversing its current decision, if it really does decide to do so.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Chuma,
And for the record, I don't require a "seal of approval" by you or any government to have thoughts of my own. So, your "citation needed" is also a sign that you require everyone's thoughts to be approved and back up by others, such as the government.

Now, if you want to get into comparisons, let's compare that.

John Bruce requires that everyone accept his views and any other views are invalid unless approved by him.

I've never said that other's views must be approved by me or anyone else. For that matter, I've never required anyone to blindly accept any opinion I've ever had. Indeed, on many occassions I've recommended that others seek out additional information.

Yet, here you sit requiring that anyone's personal belief or opinions regarding the government must be backed up by government or other source approval. Otherwise, the individual with the personal opinion is simply invalid, whether there is something to the opinion or not. Sounds more like the acts of John Bruce than my choice of Freedom of Thought.

Perhaps we should, in fact, demand that ALL personal opinions by YOU should ALWAYS have someone else of more authority agreeing with you. Else your personal opinion and views are without value.

After all, the last thing we want is Freedom of Thought and the ability to construct one's own personal opinions.

No where have I ever said that no one's opinions were less valuable simply because their opinions were derived from their own observations. I'll disagree with their observations, but I won't consider their observations any more or less valid than anyone else's. Even now, I won't suggest that you remain consistant and back up every single thought you have with "citation" because only people in authority have the correct answer. If you want to follow blindly the statements of your government, that is totally your perogative.

I, however, will continue to be a Free Thinker and form my own opinions, like it or not.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

nightwing:

"And for the record, I don’t require a “seal of approval” by you or any government to have thoughts of my own."

Nupe. "Opinions are like arseholes" as the saying goes. However your opinion is expressed over and over without any acknowledgement of the counter-argument (such as a complete lack of any evidence to back up your claims for instance) or trying to portray another persons position for them (continually suggesting I am pro-Labour government despite having voted Lib Dem for nearly 10 years and ignoring my thoughts on other government issues) or any attempt to discuss issues, rather just pound away with the same single point repeatedly.

"Yet, here you sit requiring that anyone’s personal belief or opinions regarding the government must be backed up by government or other source approval."

If you had any sources to back up your claims, they would not be from government. They wouldn't announce to you that they had spoken to the BBFC behind the scenes. However, that you do not have evidence that they HAVEN'T done this does not give you any more credibility. If you just stopped ranting for long enough to see the difference between your opinion and your assertion of facts (yes you continually use the word "fact" over and over). then this repetitious banter can stop easily.

"No where have I ever said that no one’s opinions were less valuable simply because their opinions were derived from their own observations. I’ll disagree with their observations, but I won’t consider their observations any more or less valid than anyone else’s."

Just as long as you realise the difference between observations and facts. If I observe that men are worse drivers than women, that is an observation. If I offer you a statistical analysis of both genders from all insurance companies, that is fact.

I note at this point it is probably a waste of my time to say the above when you make statements like "If you want to follow blindly the statements of your government, that is totally your perogative." immediately after saying that you value other people's opinions.

You seem to only be able to argue from the point of view of ridicule or badly summised opinion. The first is infuriating and the latter is fine as long as you adjust your opinions when talking to others, otherwise you are merely preaching.

nightwing:

Actually here. Rather than me taking things point by point Ill sum up neatly why I am arguing with you:

1. You believe that governments are not to be trusted - I agree.

2. You believe that the BBFC is not independant - I disagree, and have offered numerous websites including their own and their past record as proof they can be trusted to run independant of government.

3. You believe that having the force of law means that the BBFC are part of the government - I disagree, and that one is not just merely definition, it is fundemental to the difference between a government body and an independant one. I will stop short of saying you think independant bodies are government bodies, but some of the statements you have made make me believe this is possibly the case.

4. You believe that because the government COULD do things behind the scenes, that they WILL do things behind the scenes and therefore the BBFC can't be trusted - I disagree and point out that you cannot assume a positive without proof, you can only assume a negative.

5. You believe that if you trust the government not to interfere in the rating of computer games then you believe everything they say - I disagree. None of the above means I am pro government or that I believe everything they say. The Labour government's record on Public Transport, Iraq, Hospital waiting lists etc etc proves they cannot be. However I am not going to thing the worst of the BBFC just because their word has the enforcement of law.

There we go. Is that not the position we find ourselves on? Feel free to correct any of the above 5 points as you see fit.

The UK's system of handling video games doesn't need a vast conspiracy to make it look bad.

1: The government places legal weight behind the BBFC. If they aren't in bed together, they are at least making out in the broom closet. You can't deny that link. So if the BBFC refuses to ban a game and the government supports that ban legally then the government is censoring the game.

Government censorship = Bad

2: The BBFC is some company not elected by the people. And someone after this post is going to come in screaming about the independence of the BBFC from government influence. Okay, I'll roll with that. But they are also independent from YOUR influence. They make your decisions and you do not matter.

But as to state my opinion completely clearly: I believe that the BBFC is a part of the British Government.

I also believe that there are those in the US government, such as Senators Clinton and Lieberman who wish to make the ESRB a part of the US government by giving the ESRB force of law.

1. Good enough. Not out of strict paranoia, but knowing the all consuming power of government entities to screw the the citizens over. Prior bad acts by governments do tend to leave the citizens concerned about future abuses.

2, 3, 4, 5. Claiming independancy is irrelevant. Safegaurds in general aren't put into place because someone WILL, but rather as a preventative because someone COULD. Firewalls aren't because someone WILL break into your computer but rather as a prevention because someone COULD. Laws set to limit or ban gifts to politicians aren't because a politician WILL accept an "inappropriate" gift, but rather as a prevention because someone COULD offer a gift and someone COULD accept a gift. And the statement that the government COULD intervene in the actions of the BBFC is a sign that there is NO safeguard, no prevention, against them doing so. And because of that lack of safeguard, it leaves the BBFC vulnerable to manipulation.

In fact, using the Wikipedia article on the BBFC, note the difference between the local governments and national government. The local governments can choose to follow the BBFC ratings, ignore them, or go stronger than the ratings. They treat the BBFC as totally voluntary and independant. I'm sure it could lead to confusion between one local government and another, but still, the local government doesn't, and can't, affect the BBFC directly. The national government, however, CAN intervene directly with the BBFC because there is no direct prevention from them doing so. Just saying they are independant isn't prevention. It's nothing more than publicity.

It is difficult to tell which is worse though.
(a) Having no safeguards in place and hoping for the best.
(b) Having safeguards in place, and when a violation occurs, having the government suddenly interpret the safeguard in some other way so that the act really wasn't a violation after all. The US is monumental in this regard.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Erik:

"But as to state my opinion completely clearly: I believe that the BBFC is a part of the British Government."

You're wrong - period. The BBFC is not part of the government in any way whatsoever.

"The BBFC is some company not elected by the people. "

Agreed. They are a company who have guidelines and they try to follow and enforce them the best they can.

The guidelines are set by current political/social standards and those from government, but the decision rests with them. I genuinely do NOT believe that government (both past and present) spend their time reviewing computer games or dvds or films when there is someone else to do that for them, not matter what the political motivation.

"1: The government places legal weight behind the BBFC. If they aren’t in bed together, they are at least making out in the broom closet. You can’t deny that link."

I can and I do. For starters, the *LAW* puts its weight behind the BBFC, not the government. The suggestion that the BBFC consult the government on ratings is without foundation. No. I do not believe this happens. I believe lots of negative things regarding the Labour government, but that it overseas a company it has entrusted for the last 90+ years to rate Films and games etc seems one step too far into presumption.

"2: The BBFC is some company not elected by the people. And someone after this post is going to come in screaming about the independence of the BBFC from government influence. Okay, I’ll roll with that. But they are also independent from YOUR influence. They make your decisions and you do not matter."

Thats a seperate argument, and one you are free to make. I won't discuss the merits of an unelected body being in charge of the UKs censorship other than to say it has worked very well for a very long time and I would wager even Rockstar and Take Two would agree it does a good job the HUGE majority of the time. However, your opinion on if it is good or bad to have an unelected body incharge is as valid as anyone elses and not subject to fact, fiction or otherwise.

Nightwing:

I'll reply in the morning. Tired now and, rather than risk kicking off again when we are seeming to be having discussion, will get back to you when I am of a fully sober disposition.

@ nightwng2000

I love the way you bang on about safeguards and imply that the UK has a lack of them. Doesn't the fact that Manhunt 2 now can and will go on general sale in the UK only prove that the UK has demonstrable, workable and active safeguards in operation?

WTF is your real agenda here?

Re: monkeythumbs
I am also impelled to ask the same question, in fact Nightwing2000's continued vilifications of the BBFC combined with continued insistance that they are corrupt without proof can only mean one thing:
That there is a link between him and the PEGI, there's no actual proof showing this but since he has shown no evidence that he isn't then we can only conclude that he's being influenced by them.

How unfortunate to be hoist by one's own petard, no?

@Chuma

"You’re wrong - period. The BBFC is not part of the government in any way whatsoever."

I disagree. And you have yet to say anything to change that opinion.

Exactly MonkeyThumbs,

Isn't it better that an independant system is in place that is able to adapt over time rather than being an inflexible monolithic one?

Erik, so your saying all regulatory bodies are part of the government under the country they reside in?

@Buncha Kneejerks

If they are able to make decisions which are backed up by law, then yes.

How about banks?

If they make decisions which the government upholds, then yes.

Police? Hospitals? Loan Companies?

Governement doesn't uphold them, the courts do.

Rather big difference there.

Police? Uh, yeah they ARE the government.


As for all the others. If they are allowed to make decisions that are backed by the government then yes.

"Governement doesn’t uphold them, the courts do.

Rather big difference there. "


Courts are the fucking government!

But seeing as the BBFC isn't a part of the government and therefore cannot decide what games can be legally sold or not (as that would be a governmental decision), then it would have been perfectly okay for an outlet to sell Manhunt 2 without their input.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightWhat I can't understand is why gamergate supporters feel the need to silence their critics. Why can't they simply fight free speech with free speech.10/02/2014 - 8:23am
E. Zachary KnightSo what I am saying is that since gamergate failed to force Gamasutra to retract their editorial directly, they are now going the starvation route.10/02/2014 - 8:22am
E. Zachary KnightAs an illustration, you can kill someone by shooting them in the head, or you can starve them to death. The means don't matter, just the ends.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I can't speak for James, but trying to silence a critic by blocking its financial supporters is a censorious activity. It may not be the same as direct censoring, but its ends are the same.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary KnightMecha, I found neither the title nor the content of Gamasutra's Gamers are Dead article inflammatory. But I guess that just means I was the target audience for it.10/02/2014 - 8:16am
prh99@james_fudge Agreed, but then again this group doesn't exactly have high ethical standards or even a grasp of hypocrisy. They do pretty much anything to damage their targets.10/02/2014 - 8:14am
MechaTama31Are... Are you guys suggesting that the content of the "Gamers are over" article is *less* inflammatory than the title?10/02/2014 - 7:58am
quiknkoldhey James, Boycotts are not Censorship. Supreme Court NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)10/02/2014 - 7:37am
Michael ChandraWhat's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That said, the name says it all.10/02/2014 - 7:34am
E. Zachary KnightYes.10/02/2014 - 7:29am
ConsterQuestion: is Kefka on drugs, or is he secretly a conspiracy theorist character from a TV show?10/02/2014 - 7:21am
james_fudgeEnjoy my comedy stylings.10/02/2014 - 7:10am
james_fudgehttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/02/It-s-been-real-GameJournoPros-prepares-to-close-its-doors10/02/2014 - 7:09am
InfophileAnd the headlines-only part is particularly depressing, as in most sites, they're not even written by the author of the article. So the author has to field tons of complaints about what the editor decided to title their article.10/02/2014 - 6:25am
InfophileAE: Most people don't. This has been tested - I remember an article slipped in a request in the second-to-last paragraph to use the word "banana" in your comment if you read that. It took over 50 posts for a banana.10/02/2014 - 6:24am
james_fudgeprh99: Whether you agree with the article or not, fighting alleged censorship with censorship is hella lame10/02/2014 - 4:27am
james_fudgewhoever made that decision at Intel will regret it later on down the road. Boycotts are tricky business.10/02/2014 - 4:26am
prh99The unflattering characterization "They don’t know how to dress or behave." & "‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction..." probably didn't help.10/02/2014 - 1:52am
prh99Probably not many as it was purely a vindictive move. The headline alone was plenty of ammo, but for those that did read and complain..10/02/2014 - 1:42am
Andrew EisenI wonder how many of those who complain about that article actually read past the headline.10/02/2014 - 1:37am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician