Originally Posted By: Cris
My personal feelings are that they have had to pull on odd resources as there is no research or studies that actually back up what they are trying to say.

Far from it. Their has been a lot of research, including the paper Tony C. linked to at the start of the thread on Gamergate. Much of it was done because the name alone helped bind together many different online sources to help study what happened. On the wider issues the UN paper discussed, other aspects are also well researched. Been slowly digging into each of the citations in the UN paper. The 90s gamer one at the end (118) was easy to spot by myself as I've already read through it and the followup research that debunked many of it's points. It does reflect badly on the output, but not the process (IMHO).

Originally Posted By: Cris
Like you said, I don't think in the long run it will be of any use in it's current state.

I didn't mean to imply that. The paper it's self may have several flaws in it. Other parts though are more a divide between sex positive feminists and feminists against the sex positive culture. The paper was mainly written by someone in the second sub-group.

The process of creating this paper with some of the panels held at the UN has been good to see. One important point Zoe even argued there was protection of online anonymity.

There are many different groups coming together sharing experiences and trying to come to a common consensus. At the UN level this is tricker, due to the national interests also coming forward, such as the nations that want to eliminate online anonymity. While it's been frustrating for some involved, they all seem to indicate it's still worth the effort to push forward at the UN, while other efforts also continue.