No doubt they are numerical a minority, the problem is that, as with anything on the internet, their voices can be projected louder because it is easier. The other problem being is that a number of gamers don't want to be bothered by this situations, they just want to enjoy their games.
And we all know what is said about what evil needs to truimph
As for Gamersgate itself, in principal it is a good idea. There are so many problems with publishers and reviewers that something should have happened, but it should have happened a great deal earlier. For example, during the Machinima/Microsoft situation or during Sega round of takedowns on people reviewing their older shining force games, or the nonsense revolving the early demonstrations of Aliens : Colonial Marines. These are events that desire this sort of blow out that Gamersgate seems to have come about.
But Zoe Quinn getting a passing reference to her game after sleeping with a reviewer? And this game in particular was free to play (while there was a pay what you think situation going, it doesn't change the fact that it is free) so she could have no reasonable expectation of gaining much in the way of profit. Why was it that this was the tipping point for the blow out when in comparison it is so relatively minor?
Now, from what I can see of the evidence of censorship and supression of the discussion? Yes, that is just as much of a problem because it serves no purpose other than to infruriate and annoy people who believe they have a valid point to make. I imagine a fair amount of the censorship and supression in regards to Zoe Quinn comes from an overly heavy-handed attempt to stop abusive, aggression and trolling just because certain people feel they should be allowed to be abusive. Should it happen? I'm not entirely sure, I don't agree with the supression of discussion and disagreement, on the other hand, if it is purely abuse than I don't see why people should be given a forum for it, as it is neither productive or helpful
Could the criticism of what Zoe Quinn 'might' have done have been orginally valid? Possibly, and personally, if she did that then she needs to take a serious look at her own ethics, but given the rather sketchy evidence presented as to her actions, a jilted ex- and some rather unclear disagreement with a group of female gamers? I am rather reluctant to say much either way.
The bigger problem is that the focus on Zoe Quinn actually gets away from the larger problem at hand. The messed up state of game reviewing, how so much of it is just PR and advertising for the industry at large, and the lack of ethics in general. If people want to examine the behaviour of an individual, there needs to be a major overhaul of the system first
