(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689c9ee6771fb4e8e54f3c31)

"The correction of the articles was of course going to be a requirement for them to collaborate."

Then it should have been this way from the beginning. Hussie lied about this to enter negotiations in a more favorable position. They then switched up later. This is bad conduct, and no one has yet been able to dispute this at all other than saying that the article is made up entirely.

"Why would Hussie co-sign and officially partner with someone who was spreading (even in just their opinion) misinformation about them and other partners they've worked with? "

I don't know. Why would Hussie reach out to Gio when he has articles up that supposedly do these things? That is for Hussie to know and us to likely never find out.

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689c9f98eb0e1f3bcaa7a83f)

"You already say "as part of negotiations," but are upset that Hussie actually was... negotiating?"

Hussie was not negotiating in good faith.

"everyone's focusing on poor little Gio"

Gio is the wronged party in this exchange. Gio has done bad stuff in the past, sure, but flagrant legal threats aren't the way to do this. IMO, the way to do this was to just let sleeping dogs lie. More people have probably read those articles in the past week than the rest of the year.

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689ca933771fb4e8e5511b56)

"It's far more Bambosh's than Gio's imo."

Bambosh stated that Gio was an important part of the project in their first exchange with Miles. Bambosh clearly wanted Gio in on the project.

""nice?" Honestly I think Hussie should could have been a lot less nice, with what Gio has done in the past. A lot of people are acting as if Gio is a neutral party here."

Gio was told that he would be treated as a neutral party and that the articles wouldn't be a problem. This later changed.

"If they HAD to work with Gio, then of course they were going to have stipulations."

Gio was told that there would not be.

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689cbc78771fb4e8e554ce6e)

""articles" "muckraker" GIO'S A BLOGGER BRO."

this is silly. blogs have articles.

"who's posts only ever seem to gain traction when they're about homestuck"

homestuck is a big topic...

"that, erm, actually posts about Multiple topics"

you can just look at gios blog and see that he also posts about multiple topics. why say things that are obviously not true?

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689cbf25771fb4e8e5557217)

"does anyone else remember when it was considered a dick move to sell fanwork based on other smaller artists work?"

Gio isn't selling anything. the UHC is free.

"To me, and mind you I have no idea what exact licenses are being given/agreed upon here, this is an Understandable attempt at finding a balance point between making fandom happy and creatively prolific while also making it so that at least some of the bigger projects aren’t like Technically illegal"

Hussie has complete control of the Homestuck brand, at this point. Anything technically illegal being enforced is entirely on Hussie. If they are fine with the work, they can simply not threaten to sue people. This saves them money, time, and stress, and extends this courtesy to the fan work creator as well. Gio also immediately complied with the cease and desist he did receive, and it wasn't enough. Hussie has no rights to the UHC reader, and therefore can't legally request that it be taken down. They did anyway.

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689cd4dbeb0e1f3bcab302a7)

"It's a bizarre amount of entitlement imo to be, as an outsider, demanding information about this."

It would be, had Hussie not reached out to her and asked to set the story straight. They then proceeded to not do this. How is this Sarah's fault at all? The most you can say about that is that publishing it made Hussie look bad and that's bad, but, like... ok? Did she edit the emails or something? What is the problem with that video?

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689cd983eb0e1f3bcab459cf)

"DOES, or DOES NOT, Hussie have the right to distance themself AND HIS COMIC/BRAND from people who cause them trouble?"

Ok, well, this is an obviously false premise. That isn't what Hussie was doing. If you believe this is what "distancing your comic from people who cause them trouble" looks like, you don't have the right to do that.

(https://www.fruityrumpus.com/forums/reply/689cd9c6771fb4e8e55c104b)

"There is basically nothing to show that Hussie like, what, deliberately lost the funds? Abused people?"

Hussie themself responded to an email and randomly admitted that they didn't credit an artist who worked on Hiveswap because she was on bad terms with the company. Is this capital A Abuse? I don't think so. But it does display that there was some bad conduct that Hussie seemingly did not think was bad. Even if this was the only thing in this vein that supposedly happened, it would still be rather damning...

It distresses me how many of the rebuttals in this thread are based off of false information that is easy to verify. Unless you believe that everything Gio said in his article is STRAIGHT UP FAKE (which is your right. Believe that if you want. It is less rhetorically shaky, anyway.), which no one here seems to believe, you have to at least accept his premise a little bit. If this happened as Gio describes it, it is really bad.

Also, to address the sealioning claims... You can't really make those when you are actively engaging in a discussion thread about the topic. If someone is hounding you for proof in every twitter post you make, that's different. If you don't want to be asked to prove things, just don't engage with the thread!

Apologies if I fucked up any of the links, and apologies for the very long post. I didn't want people to have to go back and scroll through all of the slap fighting to find what I was quoting. But I guess if I fucked up the links you'll have to do that anyway, sorry!