Whats frustrating about this whole discourse is how fast it's been derailed into personal attacks, pronoun discourse, and vague moral character assassinations instead of actually engaging with the substance of Gio’s post.
First off: yes, parts of the UHC codebase are still accessible. That does not magically mean ''nothing happened'' or ''Gio is lying.'' The central point of his post isn't ''every byte is gone,'' its that he was forced to take down his own hosted version under threat of legal escalation from Hussie's side, and that this happened after nearly two years of documented manipulation, hostile takeover attempts, and bad faith legal threats. The fact that other forks exist is irrelevant to the fact that his fork, the one most widely used and properly maintained, is gone because keeping it up would have meant risking a lawsuit.
This is like saying ''a protest was never shut down because some people stayed on the sidewalk'' — it’s missing the point entirely.
Second: the ''no evidence'' claims are Dishonest. The blog contains timelines, direct quotes from chats, and consistent accounts of who said what and when. They're text logs because thats the format those conversations existed in, pretending this makes them inherently less legitimate than screenshots is ridiculous. NDAs and private communications were a deliberate part of Hussie's team's strategy, so of course there’s not a pile of publicly shareable PDFs stamped by a court clerk. If someone truly ''was there,'' then the question should be whether their recollection aligns with the documented conversations, not just “I was there so trust me instead.”
Third: the transmisogyny accusation being thrown around is deeply suspect here. In the actual post, everyone, including Hussie’s own team members, consistently uses he/him pronouns for Hussie. Pretending that this is some fresh moral failing to justify ignoring everything else is either a deliberate misread or a bad faith attempt to shift the conversation away from the allegations. If there are genuine concerns about Gio’s conduct toward trans people, they should be substantiated with specifics and evidence, not dropped like rhetorical grenades in the middle of a conversation about Hussie's abuse of power. Right now, it just looks like an ad hominem to delegitimize a critic.
Fourth: the ''history of lying/doxxing/etc.'' claims are exactly what the blog warns about, vague, unverified allegations deployed to poison the well so no one has to address the content of his reporting. Even if Gio had a checkered past (and that’s still a big ''If'' given the lack of receipts here), that would not erase what's in the current write up. Arguments should live or die on their own merits, and dismissing someone entirely because ''nobody important likes them anymore'' is playground politics, not an argument.
Finally, and this is the most important part, all of this noise serves Hussie. Whether people realize it or not, derailing into personality debates, pronoun accusations, and ''grading'' the writing quality is exactly the kind of deflection that lets the central issue slide out of view. Hussie has a long, documented pattern of controlling behavior, retaliation against criticism, and weaponizing legal tools to harm people in his own community. The UHC situation fits perfectly into that track record. That's where the focus should be.
Because at the end of the day, the question isn't ''Do you like Gio?'' or ''does a public fork still exist?'', its:
Did Hussie and his team use NDAs, divide and conquer tactics, and legal threats to try to seize control of a fan led project?
Did they follow through on retaliation when they didnt get it?
And does this match a broader pattern of how they’ve treated collaborators and critics before?
PFP by Workdailylog on Tumblr
Read the Blog post made by Gio here!
https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2025/08/08/uhc-end/?campaign=hsd
PFP by Workdailylog on Tumblr
i've already read it and it doesn't make sense to me and i don't think it would unless i was approaching it already having concluded that andrew hussie is evil, which i don't believe and gio's post didn't make me believe
"Without love, it cannot be seen."
The fact y'all really think the transmisogyny accusations are over Hussie's pronouns and not Kate Mitchell is so fucking funny. Y'all just fucking assumed that and then got mad about it.
There, I said her name. The trans woman the whole fandom decided was ok to hate cuz she was mean online. Please proceed to tell me how you think that was ok, actually.
Y'all literally don't remember trans women when we mention transmisogyny. It's fucking hilarious.
-- The Butch
best thread on the situation thus far. very based post, OP
I definitely think alot of the excuses are a unfortunate part of people not being able to accept this as true either way, don't get me wrong, theres strange shit about the blogpost no matter how damning it is, but even if there wasnt there would still be naysayers because nobody wants to accept that the thing they loved is entangled in such a big manipulative mess, that it's owner is a giant piece of shit. Hell, I am god's proclaimed Number 1 HSBC fan, but ive gotta admit, theres a good chance its over, and that really sucks for me on a personal level, but its 100% not worth just ignoring all the facts so we can keep playing candy land and act like none of these things are really issues.
All reasonable points, but I would like to say that even still, this is just one side of the narrative and I can tell you at least from my brief interaction with him he does in fact like to pick and choose what is and is not presented and is very careful about how it is presented to serve his goals. I know personally for a fact there are things here that are just actively false that I will be reaching out to at least try and have corrected.
Once there's a statement from other sides of the narrative, I'd ask you at least give it the time of day.
re: Margot Kix
*ahem*
"Because at the end of the day, the question isn't ''Do you like Gio?''"
Re: vriskazone
Thats exactly the problem, if you’re only willing to believe bad things about Hussie after youve already decided he’s “evil,” you’re not actually engaging with the evidence or the history.
Hussies past isn’t some vague rumor mill, theres a well documented track record: lawsuits and legal threats against community members (Sarah Z being one of the highest profile examples), projects like Hiveswap collapsing amid claims of mismanagement, collaborators leaving under bad terms, and years of scattered testimony from former team members about hostile work environments. The UHC situation isnt an isolated ''Gio says so'', it fits neatly into an established pattern of controlling behavior, retaliation, and legal intimidation...
If you're reading Gio's post with the mindset of ''nothing will convince me unless I already believe Hussie is bad,'' then of course you won't find it convincing, you've pre decided the conclusion. But refusing to even weigh the allegations against Hussies documented past actions is basically saying ''I'm not going to change my mind no matter what,'' which isnt a fair standard for anyone.
You don’t have to take Gio's word on faith, you just have to look at the consistencies between what he describes and what's already public about how Hussie has operated for over a decade. If multiple independent accounts across years point to the same behavior, maybe the issue isn't that ''you need to think he’s evil first,++ but that the evidence has been there all along.
PFP by Workdailylog on Tumblr
RE: chthonikix
Okay, I at least want to say, the reason I thought the accusations of transmisogyny were about Hussie because I haven't been in the fandom that long and have no idea that the situation you are mentioning happened.
Hiya. Just a random question, but you know what a majority vote is?
and why should i believe such past evidence on its face? if one can question gio's post why can they not question past accusations? is it not possible that things have been consistently represented in bad faith? it's also worth noting that all the shit with sarah z stems from her only using gio as a source and given gio's history of stalking hs crew members i feel like that immediately taints that source
"Without love, it cannot be seen."
Re: cami
Yeah, I think thats the only reasonable way to handle it right now, we work with what’s in front of us.
Right now, Gio's post is the only detailed account anyone's put forward, so of course it's going to be the reference point for discussion. That doesnt mean we're goign to treat it like gospel, but it also doesn’t mean we ignore it just because its ''one side.'' If there are genuine inaccuracies or things left out, then the best way to resolve that is for the other parties to actually put out their own statement or evidence, not for people to vaguely imply ''some of this is false'' without clarifying what.
Until then, the fairest approach is to take the claims seriously, cross reference them with what we already know about Hussies history, and be ready to reevaluate if/when new information comes out. Silence from the other side doesnt make Gio automatically correct, but it also doesnt make him automatically wrong. :)
PFP by Workdailylog on Tumblr
Firstly, an argument should not live or die solely on its own merits, because arguments are made by humans who do not present perfectly rational arguments. A fundamental part of critical thinking is assessing the credibility of a source, so it's only natural to question Gio's intentions. Even if every factual statement he makes is true -- which it may or may not be -- the questions of how and why he makes them, and what he leaves out, are not irrelevant.
Secondly, it's not distracting from the point to discuss Gio's transmysogyny or his past -- character evidence is a form of evidence! It doesn't get you convicted, but it does help (again) assess the credibility of a source. Additionally, if Gio's spotty past should be ignored, then Hussie's should be as well. It's not right to appeal to the previous animosity towards / behavioural patterns of Hussie but declare Gio exempt from that same treatment.
Thirdly, the transmysogyny claims existed before the topic of the pronouns he used in his post. His exclusive usage of he/him isn't the basis, it's supporting information (not to mention the fact that he also tries to delegitimize Hussie's pronouns in the footnotes. Gio explicitly says that he would use other pronouns if Hussie had them, but that he doesn't think she does because it hasn't been revealed anywhere officially) (which is also an outright lie)
So no, it's not a question of "do you like Gio?", it's a question of "do you trust the narrative Gio is presenting?", and for me at least, that is a no at this point.
There's been plenty of evidence of Hussie acting in despicable ways prior to this. He has threatened to sue people for spreading 100% true verifiable facts before this(we all know what case that's referring to). In my view, that is such a reprehensible thing to do that I do not consider it an exaggeration to call it evil - attempting to use your wealth as a bludgeon to ruin someone's life by burying them in lawsuits is frankly sickening. The only reason I ever thought this 'HICU' concept worthy of consideration was because of Hussie's alleged non-involvement. With confirmation, now, that it's simply a lie, what's the point?
the second point in the OP is the crux of the entire blog post (imo). gio has accused hussie and co. of committing spoliation among other dubiously-legal acts of evidence obfuscation - while he himself is using recreations of discord chatlogs and emails instead of actual screenshot evidence of these discussions.
for whatever reason, gio has decided to format the blog post in this way. either because the original logs are lost to him, the original logs are really messy and full of cross-talk and unrelated additions/missing sections, or its an intentional choice to condense the conversations and make it easier for a reader to parse. but i dont think he made that decision to spuriously misrepresent the contents of the "logs", because that would in and of itself would be wildly hypocritical and completely undermine the entire post. it's even easier to prove the email recreations are fraudulent unless homestuck's legal "team" is comically incompetent and deleted the emails.
thats not to say this gives him credibility or benefit of the doubt, because thatd be some kind of logical fallacy (one that im not caffeinated enough to figure out the name of). itd only take a couple of people on the other side of the narrative to give actual first-hand screenshots of the conversations thatd explictly prove gio is lying or misrepresenting them to rip the entire post apart and open him to a case of having committed actual straight up libel. it would be INCREDIBLY fucking risky to open himself to that sort of a response.
the point im trying to make is to observe with scrutiny and scepticism until everything is laid out on the table and not be an absolutist reactionary to either side of the fence. to quote confucious, "trust no bitches".
Life is short. Become a brand risk.
Re: miss_bec
Note that it isn't too hard to fake Discord screenshots. Regardless of whether the evidence people present is in the form of raw text or screenshots, a conflict would be near impossible to resolve conclusively. At best, we'd be able to compare the stories told by each side with existing verifiable facts and patterns of behavior.
hi! going to clarify some hyperspecific points so you can keep discussing this.
so, andrew is still uninvolved with the HICU, but original homestuck stuff is still within the Hussie Domain. that's, like, their life's work right there. so stuff like hiring a specialist to fix homestuck.com (in progress), and reaching out to the UHC team to try and make an official collection were andrew moves.
fraf, hsbc, etc. is all hands off. we're just doing whatever the fuck. a good amount of us are planning to help/have already started working on the official collection, though. but that's just extracurricular.
