I'll clarify right now, my responses below are in regards to gamers reactions and behaviour in general.
I'm not following GG specifically at all, so although what Hellis argues below may be true for GG specifically I am responding from the stance of all the non GG gamers, who are still pissed off at Zoe Quinn and Journalist for other reasons (or the same reasons, but simply don't react in the way GG does).

[quote=Hellis]it is no longer able to operate as "free press" becouse if its content is not to the liking of a organized digital mob, it is bound to come under attack. Its revenue streams get cut off.[/quote]

Actually, feminist and social justice warrior groups tend to have far more control over direct revenue streams than Gamers do.
The only real control Gamer's have is the profits made off their clicks/views, and honestly at that point a Journalist losing money for disagreeing with gamers is just a natural reaction.

If a service provider (Journalist) provides a serve/product that the consumer (Gamer) dislikes, the consumer will often stop dealing with the provider (Views/Ad money) and go somewhere else. That's not an organized attack against certain people, that's just people not giving the views to people they don't agree with. 

[quote=Hellis]and now there will be a toxic cloud looming over anyone daring to critizing 'gamers.[/quote]

[url=https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg]Extra Credits[/url] addresses issues with the gaming community, character design, game design etc. all the time. But Gamer's love them. It's not the fact that gamers are being criticized that's the issue, but that the criticism they lash out against isn't actually offering anything.

While Extra Credits goes "This is the problem, here are ways we can fix this, let's band together and do this", while a lot of Journalist are going "You people are sexist. You people suck, you should feel bad as your hobby abandons you". They don't offer solutions, they don't make any actual effort to make gaming better. It's sole purpose is to make gamers feel bad, so obviously gamers are going to react badly. You just took a shit on them for the sole purpose of making them angry.

[quote=Hellis]You call it dishonest, but organized campaings to shut off journalists for critizing you makes you a bully and a tyrant.[/quote]

The majority of what I've seen was either the consumers going elsewhere as detailed above, or people wanting Journalist to be honest about personal connections before hand. 

The former is just how business works no matter what when the service provider pisses off their consumers, the latter is wanting some level of honesty/integrity.
If the Journalist turn around and say "Well I don't want to, deal with it!" then that's their choice to not listen to the consumers, and therefore get less views and such. That's not a conspiracy or plan to take them down, that's people not wanting to waste time on a service that doesn't want to be honest with them.

[quote=Hellis]You now have a group, who has enough pull to attack and damage its own critics.[/quote]

Books, Movies, Sports etc. Every field's critics can get negative results/reactions from their audience if they piss them off.
That's the nature of being a critic, especially when you do back door deals that you're not honest about.

[quote=Hellis]It's a unchecked powerhouse.[/quote]

Actually, although gamers themselves have united pretty well and get a lot of support from Indie Developers. We are still get the shit kicked out of us pretty hard by big companies who are listening to the social justice warriors. We're only a powerhouse in the same sense I described above, we are consumers and can take our money elsewhere if we don't like a certain service or product. That's business, that's the nature of the economy and life. And I highly doubt anyone here think's forcing gamers to buy games they don't want or support is a good idea.