What has really taken me aback about the "discourse" over Gio's article is the assumption that many people on here seem to have, that they are entitled to all the "evidence" against Gio. If your thinking is, "well, Gio has presented his evidence, so if he's wrong then it should be easy to refute," I ask you to consider if it was even right for Gio to present this evidence publicly in the first place? If the case is so strong for Gio, then why does he need to rely on whipping Homestuck fans up into a fervor over the alleged actions of Hussie? Maybe I'm just personally tired of this era of Google docs call-outs, but I fail to see why this needed to be public unless Gio's case can only be made with an appeal to the reactionary emotions of Homestuck fans.
Those of you demanding "evidence" are so rigorous about validating such evidence (which I would point out is based on a subjective view of what "valid evidence" even is in this case), but have seemingly failed to view the article with any sort of critical eye. Why does this need to be made public, and why now? Why is the evidence presented in the way it is, through HTML reconstructions rather than screenshots? Why would someone keep such a meticulous log of every interaction he's had with anyone having anything to do with Homestuck? Why is it important for you, the reader, to know this information?
Gio is not a journalist, however much he acts like one, and I would point out that we are living through a real-life event that is proving the biases and fallibility of journalism as practiced in our current age. Just because you read it in a blog post does not mean it's automatically completely true.
I feel I've lost the plot of this post a bit while writing it, so I'll just wrap up by saying that I'm not making this topic to try and be inflammatory, or to say that Andrew Hussie Has Never Done Anything Even Remotely Wrong In Her Life, but to just remind everyone that it is important to be critical of your sources, as well as that we are not in a court, we are not a jury, and we have no real right to demand Andrew or anyone involved in Homestuck open up their private correspondences in order to convince you, the individual, that they are not lying.
"Without love, it cannot be seen."
I did say a few days ago that some people are asking for things they literally can't have lol. I saw a lot of people demanding Mile's speak more on what Gio said and ask "why didn't he refute or even acknowledge that stuff" but this is a forum and there is literally lawyers involved with "all of the stuff Gio said" so clearly Miles can only talk about the petty things that aren't illegal, like Gio saying they're all on Hussy's payroll here at HICU and FRAF
We might never get the full picture because that's just how the law works. Real life and internet drama is not as simple as just making a blog post or a twt thread explaining your side with discord screenshots.
yeah i wonder why the gossip 'journalist' is the only one posting huge long whinging blog posts about being the frog to a random person who has spoken to him like once's scorpion. its totally because the other person has no evidence, not because its stupid and totally irrelevant to the matter that obviously the ip owner has the most power and therefore the final say. how else is this supposed to end? with angels coming down from heaven to say "ohhh she was so mean to gio lets just give gio the comic!" i guess
This level of reasoning is possible for Furudo Erika. What do you think, everyone?
> READ GODHEAD at SPICYYETI.COM
It's like Homestuck but during Antebellum slavery.
re: spicyyeti
LSDKFJSDLKFS:LK LITERALLYYYYYYYY. I'm begging Homestuck fans to read Umineko we need to convert them to Real readers.
"Without love, it cannot be seen."
I think Gio, regardless of the validity of his arguments or any of his personal flaws, is well within his rights to present whatever evidence he has, for whatever reason he has, since Andrew Hussie is a public figure and the ethics of whatever partnerships they establish through Homestuck Inc./WhatPumpkin/whatever are a matter of public interest, especially as it involves fan creators.
Hussie/Homestuck as an entity aren't under any obligation to respond to this with any evidence of their own, and indeed may be unable to do so in some instances, but they have every motivation to offer some kind of counter evidence if they don't want to forfeit the entire narrative to Gio.
re: sabhait
I'm not arguing against his right to Post, I'm simply asking people to question why he did post in the first place. What are his actual motivations, and how has he presented said "evidence" in order to tell a specific narrative? As to the Homestuck side of things, sure there is a motivation to respond as soon as possible, but they also have the right to present it where and when (and if) they want to. I would also add that Gio posting this publicly is banking on Homestuck fans behaving in a reactionary manner, demanding for Homestuck to release counter-evidence and damning them when they "can't." It's in Gio's interest for this to become public, because unfortunately many Homestuck fans don't really question what they're reading, and will just go along with the narrative as presented to them and get into an uproar about it that harms the reputation and potentially the lives of people working for Homestuck and Andrew themself.
"Without love, it cannot be seen."
I think Andrew Hussie should sue Gio for defamation and make him go bankrupt just bc it'd be funny. I don't even think it'd be a morally okay thing to do it'd just be funny.
What is the alternative to Gio presenting the information he did publicly? His arguments against the HICU, etc. aren't legal, they're ethical. He can't exactly present this stuff to any kind of whistle blowing agency, or regulatory body. Even assuming the most innocent of intent on Gio's behalf, its obviously in his interests to make this public, because the whole point is to draw attention to behaviour which he considers unethical.
There's nothing wrong with a consumer boycott in concept, so I don't understand this angle of "Gio should never have made this public", as if its beef they could have squashed in Twitter DMs. If you think Gio is wrong, that Hussie isn't acting unethically, or that Gio's evidence is grossly misleading that's fine, but provoking some kind of mass outrage isn't an ontological misdemeanour in and of itself. If, hypothetically, Gio is right about even most of his claims, I'd say the fan reaction is pretty justified.
gio should shut up because hes wrong, and being explicitly bigoted to get attention and clout i feel like this is pretty simple