Zoe Quinn got threats way before gamergate was a thing and before Gjoni posted his rant (which is what makes him posting the rant odious rather than just pathetic, he knew she was already the target of threats and harassment and decided to try to publicly villify her). There was no gamergate before the harassment started, gamergate began as the harassment of Zoe Quinn.
Gamergate was created from Gjoni’s false claims. It started as a “sex for reviews” scandal, hence the connection with journalism ethics. Since that didn’t happen at all, gaters said it was about journalism ethics more broadly.
Check out this, written by someone who supports gamergate: http://www.historyofgamergate.com/
It openly admits it started with false claims by Gjoni about Quinn, but it basically says, “Even if they were false, Quinn is still bad.” I found that link by reading tweets about gamergate with the #gamergate hashtag attached. They had lots of favourites, they were retweeted, this is something endorsed by at least a sizeable subgroup of gamergate. Their own version of events is that this started with a jilted ex-boyfriend making a false claim.
When I said that whistleblowing is tough and that’s unrelated to gamergate, I meant that whistleblowing is always tough in all fields regardless of what hashtags are going on. Ask Snowden. People who fear they will lose their jobs if they expose the shady practices of their employers would fear that if gamergate were never a thing, so when we talk about “pro-gamergate” people worrying about losing their jobs or suffering other retribution for their views, it splits the way I said it does: a) there are people who legitimately could expose wrongdoing who are worried about the consequnces of doing so; and b) there are people who are pro-gamergate who are worried about the consequences of saying they are.
Group (a) would be in the same position if gamergate and the anti-gamergate forces did not exist, so they are in no way being threatened by those opposed to gamergate. Group (b) have aligned themselves with a movement that a vast swath of people think is about misogyny, and that is why they have to keep their opinions to themselves, because their opinion is that it is a good idea to align themselves with a group that a very large number of people think is a hate group.
Again, suppose there was a group of 20 people who called themselves a chapter of the KKK, but they weren’t racist at all and in fact all they did was organize community barbeques and fundraisers for local homeless programs. Then when someone said, “What the hell, you are in the KKK?” they would say, “Hey, it’s not fair to think we are racist.” My suggestion to those people would be to have a serious think about whether the name “KKK” was so important to them that they were willing to be thought of as racist by nearly everyone. Because if it is then it’s very hard to believe they aren’t racist.
Well, almost everything starts with good intentions, gamergate being an exception.