The popular open-source project for the game making tool Godot Game Engine is imploding after describing itself as #Wokot on Twitter, facing allegations of political purges and unlawful processing of user data, leading to a storm of condemnation by users, donor exits and the creation of a rival ‘fork’ called the Redot Engine. The problem has been worsened by a tone deaf post about gender politics from founder Juan Linietsky which may be seen by some as pro-transgender, but, although he may not have intended it, in your author’s opinion may be seen by others as endorsing abuse and misogyny. In some jurisdictions, the post could be seen as unlawful discrimination or creating a hostile environment.

The Godot Game Engine is an open-source tool for making games. For those readers unfamiliar with software development, it is a pre-written library of code that can be used to avoid reinventing the wheel when making games. Such libraries are popular because they save a lot of time and money. They are not generally political and nothing in the Godot Engine license has any political content, instead using the popular MIT license.

Problems at the project began on 27 September 2024 when the official account posted this tweet (archive):

The post, to MHN’s mind is gauche, but it was probably not the cause of the project’s problems. The project was responding to ludicrous assertions online that only ‘woke’ game developers used engines, which is absurd. Lots of companies use engines from a variety of commercial and open-source brands. What really triggered the outrage was blocking people for mild dissent and requests for technical fixes:

Twitter user @funnygamedev tweeted the above message asking for fixes to bitmap font functions (archive), only to be blocked shortly thereafter (archive). Other users reported similar experiences, only to be blocked. Some users even complained of being blocked when they had never used or interacted with the @GodotEngine account [1] (archive) [2] (archive).

Similar blocks were reported on Discord and on Github – some developers reporting being denied access to the source code they needed to work. This led to an inference that someone at the Godot Engine project was using blocklists based on perceived political alignments. Use of personal data for commercial purposes to create lists of political, ‘badthinkers’ is processing of ‘special category data’ under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as the UK GDPR. It is likely to be unlawful. Individuals in the UK who believe their personal data has been misused can complain to the UK Information Commissioner, those living in EU countries can complain to their own local GDPR authority.

Developers began to contact the founder, Juan Linietsky, @reduzio on Twitter. This was followed by an extremely concerning post (archive), far more damaging to the company than the original tweet:

The reference is to the, “attack helicopter” meme. This is used by some gender critical activists to ridicule the idea of transgenderism. They believe that people cannot change sex. In the early days of this belief becoming mainstream, it was indeed used as grounds to ban, cancel and fire people. That changed with a UK legal case in which an appellate court, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that gender critical beliefs were protected by law in the same way as religious beliefs.

That meant that people who believe that transwomen are men now have exactly the same protections that they do for, for example, being Muslim. Case commentary here (archive), full judgment in Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors (RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION) [2021] UKEAT 0105_20_1006. Maya Forstater believes that, “It is impossible for a male to become female. It is possible to undergo a social transition. Anyone who believes a male can become female and give birth, that is a delusion. My belief is that sex is real and immutable.”

The decision was made post Brexit but was based in part on the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is still part of. It is likely to be followed in Europe and the Netherlands, such as in Spain where Juan Linietsky lives. In short, in the UK if you get fired or denied service by a company for wearing an, “attack helicopter” t-shirt, you can likely sue for damages. The whole panoply of equalities law applies – once you have reached a minimum evidentiary hurdle, the burden of proof is reversed. The defendant must show they were not even subconsciously motivated by your protected belief.

The transgender debate has moved on here in the UK, where there has been significant pushback by those who feel that allowing people who were born male to be treated as women and access women’s spaces such as toilets is an abuse of women’s rights. This is now a protected belief. There is also a concern about allowing children to transition. There was an explosion of so-called, ‘transgender’ children, but after a very thorough report commissioned by the government, called the Cass Report, it has been decided that there is limited evidence that children benefit from puberty blockers or transition. Britain has banned puberty blockers for children and the High Court has declared that ban was lawful (archive). A review also found that denying ‘transgender’ children access to transition or puberty blockers does not cause suicide (archive) – it is a trope often used by trans campaigners but it is not correct. Many reasonable people regard childhood transition, whether socially, by drugs or surgically as a form of child sexual abuse derived from adult concerns and preoccupations.

These issues have all become conflated in many minds.

The, “attack helicopter” meme is not a detailed analytical statement or a manifesto. It is more like a football shirt or a religious token – a symbol of allegiance or a shorthand for a detailed statement of belief. To use the, “attack helicopter” meme is to say you believe the concept of changing sex is risible. It is protected belief. To oppose the meme and say it is worthy of an instant ban is also not a detailed manifesto. It is to say in a broad sense that gender critical belief is unacceptable.

Juan Linietsky likely thought his words good and virtuous. However, he and his colleagues seem to lack understanding of the polarised nature of the debate and the strong and legitimate views held by the other side. He was seen as making his own tribal statement of allegiance just as the @GodotEngine account was seen to when in referred to #Wokot. In your author’s opinion, some people who hold the protected belief that sex is immutable would likely see Juan as deliberately aligning himself with the full panoply of transgender ideology. An alignment with what they see as the invasion of women’s spaces and the sexual abuse of children by irreversible genital transition surgery.

The @GodotEngine Twitter account is believed by many to be operated by Godot ‘Community Manager’ Nathalie Galla. Galla lives in Germany and their personal Twitter account is @MurderVeggie (archive). Her LinkedIn account is here. Galla is believed to be personally responsible for many of the blocks.

After the story began to be picked up by major figures such as YouTuber AsmonGold (archive), Galla went on a bizarre attacking spree. She posted a Tweet asking AsmonGold to provide proof that, “proof that you too take showers”. This was a childish and unprofessional statement.

The Godot Game Engine is primarily maintained by the Godot Game Engine Foundation, which poured petrol on the flames by claiming those who had complained were guilty of, ‘harassment’. Their statement is in full below:

Needless to say, in the face of their own behaviour, which could also be seen as discriminatory and unlawful data processing, this went down like a lead balloon.

When I went to the official Godot Foundation discord to look into things, I noticed a moderator, Luci, making a remark I considered discriminatory. I explained why. In response, ‘Luci’ immediately removed me from the project. Retaliating for a discrimination complaint is unlawful in some jurisdictions.

Within hours of the Godot Foundation statement there was a fork of the open-source project. Because open-source projects have special copyrights to prevent control of their content, it is possibly to create a rival group to maintain the source code and produce their own variant. The @RedotEngine (archive) received thousands of sign-ups, including from developers and donors, within hours of being announced. Having reviewed the project Discord, I noticed they banned political discussion, wanting to focus only on producing the game engine. This is reminiscent of the increasingly popular, ‘Mission Protocol‘ (archive).

Mission Protocol is a new corporate management philosophy that says, in summary, that activism outside the main corporate functions and expertise of a business is disruptive. To paraphrase with a hypothetical example, shaving razor companies have an incredible expertise in sticking tiny blades to handles to help people shave. They have detailed scientific knowledge about that, about the best shapes to use and how to make it cheap and efficient. They do not have a cure for the world’s pain. They do not have a solution to the ills of humanity. Their experience is about sticking metal to plastic for a very small number of use cases. To say otherwise is arrogant and a distraction from their role of making razors. Companies should only do lobbying and activism on topics they are experts in. Cable companies should lobby on cable regulation, for example, phone or internet regulation perhaps, but not ‘toxic masculinity’.

I sent the Godot Engine Foundation, Julian Linietsky and Nathalie Galla a draft of this article including the following questions:

1. Do you deny using a blocklist to pre-emptively block users on Twitter, GitHub or Discord?

2. Do you deny that the, “attack helicopter” post was capable of being interpreted as discrimination, unlawful in some jurisdictions?

3. Do you understand why Juan Linietsky’s post could be seen as misogynist or endorsing child abuse?

4. Do you accept the Foundation’s statement was offensive and wrongly accused critics of, “harassment”?

5. Does Nathalie Galla deny responsibility for any of the, “#Wokot” post, and blocks of critics, including using blocklists?

6. Is any fact or opinion set out in this draft article disputed?

No denials were received. The allegations were put over two days, from two email addresses, to multiple recipient addresses – professional and personal and the recipients were offered an extension of time on request. Multiple languages were used including German and Spanish, given that Nathalie and Juan say they live in Spain and Germany, respectively. They did not reply. They did not deny the allegations or any fact or opinion set out in this article.

The Godot Engine looks like it has taken a severe hit. A large number of users, productive contributors and donors seem to be moving to the rival site. To remedy the situation, and limit the risk of litigation, I suggest the Godot Engine Foundation immediately needs to do the following:

• Retract their existing statement and apologise for their original posts, especially making allegations against their users, donors and customers.
• Juan Linietsky needs to apologise for and retract his, “attack helicopter” post and accept that gender critical beliefs, as well as other lawful beliefs, are acceptable in project spaces.
• The project needs to commit, going forward, to focusing on product delivery and not political activism or litmus tests.
• The project needs to part ways with Nathalie, ‘Luci’ and other activist participants.
• Critics must be unblocked and unbanned.

If the Godot Foundation will not comply, the next step for concerned users is to draw the attention of their corporate donors to the controversy. The Godot Engine Foundation claims (archive) that it is supported by OSSC Capital, Khronos Group, W4 Games, V-Sekai, Google Play, Pirate Software, Megacrit, Robot Gentleman, Prehensile Tales, Copia Wealth Studios, Playful Wealth Studios, Broken Rules, Orbital Knight, Load Complete, Re-Logic, Indoor Astronaut, Null and Chasing Carrots. Will they want their product and executives named and pictured in connection with unlawful data processing, political purges and contentious political views?

For MHN the Godot Game Engine story is a heartening one. The legacy of #Gamergate is one in which the silent majority fights back and the anti-woke backlash has gathered increasing power as the excesses of a small minority continue to alienate everyone else. In this case within hours a rival product began to take Godot’s business. The lesson is clear: Go Woke, Go Broke.