please read the entirety of gio's article before irrationally posting

i've read the entirety of the article and it's pretty bad.

essentially, the way i see it, gio got really mad that he could not have complete control of the project, and started claiming that Having Friends and speaking to someone cordially is a form of abuse.

there's also this.

this is a blatant antisemitic dogwhistle that compares Not Wanting To Be Associated With Me For My History Of Stalking And Harassment with Literally The Holocaust. this was changed to "the gio question" but the dogwhistle is still there, just less blatant.

gio also constantly he/him's hussie and refers to hir as "an angry man" (changed to "an angry person" after people got mad), claiming that hussie has never made any definitive statements on xeir pronouns despite hussie putting an entire section of psycholonials about being nonbinary and using any/all pronouns reads to me as a blatant act of transmisogyny. and gios previous harassment and stalking of members of the homestuck team, especially kate (who was sent death and rape threats and had her nudes leaked as an act of revenge porn, and calling her a pedophile because her nudes got exposed to minors without her consent. all of these were done by people using gios articles as motivation), makes me extremely hesitant about everyone instantly taking the article as fact.

gio also keeps bringing up kate despite her not being involved with homestuck for years at this point. he's obsessed with this trans girl who's worst crime is being unwilling to take shit from people who are harassing her. she was recently forced to make a public apology on masto, despite her not really doing anything wrong.

I think the worst crime hussie commits is being slightly overzealous about copyright, which is annoying, especially considering I myself am a copyright abolitionist. but in the grand scheme its not some heinous crime, and i think considering how shitty people have been towards hussie and people associated with her in the past, i think it's very understandable that you would be protective over a thing you made and wanted to keep it out of the hands of bad actors.

there's also a direct quote from the article where gio basically admits that "if i were a provocateur i would [be doing the thing I'm literally doing with this exact article]".

the uhc also literally isn't gone. I've seen people calling homestuck lost media when it's still up on the offical mirror (https://homestuck.github.io).

genuinely I feel like a lot of the issues with the uhc getting allegedly "cancelled" can ultimately be boiled down to gio being unfairly combative and hostile towards people who are just trying their best to be cordial and work towards a solution that's mutually beneficial to everyone because of this preconceived notion of hussie as an abusive and manipulative cult leader instead of just an overly protective creator who made a popular thing and wanted to ensure it was kept safe from bad actors.

my opinion is definitely biased because I share a lot of circles with people who share mutual friends with andrew or are otherwise acquainted with her, and i already had a negative impression of gio because of interactions with his victims or people close to his victims, but I think just reading this article is patently on its face ridiculous, and serves to undermine any credibility of gio or anyone associated with him.

i think gio's approach to all of this is obviously suspect, as is the emphasis on gendering hussie as male & his past involvement in the kate bullshit. comparing the situation to domestic abuse or, uh, the holocaust is also incredibly bad optics. nevertheless, based on the screenshots in the blog post, i don't think it's entirely fair to frame this as gio just being entitled. even putting aside my belief that ip law is bullshit, it's just incredibly scummy from the onset to present yourself as someone who wants a genuine collaboration and then only later begin acting as if you have No Choice but to send out a c&d if the other party doesn't comply. like, there is a choice here! one of the things that made me so appalled when reading the article was how homestuck repeatedly refers to legal action as something they really don't WANT to do but just have to, like it's a wild dog they've only just managed to get a collar on. that + the NDA situation with bambosh, the legal stonewalling and attempts to split up the gio/bombash unit for the sake of convincing both of them to sign an ambiguous contract separately - all of that is just. clearly really bad. even if you don't think it's morally gross it's at the very least just insanely unprofessional in a way i think we really shouldn't be supporting.

re: EncryptedSelkie

Ur fine I think people are just pissed off cause a very good collection is being taken down and to me it seems like no one was truly in the right