Here's my thoughts....
I believe there are a lot of sincere people in GamerGate, but I also think some things are wrongheaded.
No product, especially a consumer good is free from criticism and their audience pushing for they want. Da Vinci couldn't exactly put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the Sistine Chapel, and most of our famous paintings are of wealthy men or their daughters.
Even if we didn't influence the artist, saying "We feel this is incorrect, or a bad portrayal or bad writing", or even, "We don't feel like this should be carried in a shop we frequent. If it is carried, we would be less interested in shopping here." is perfectly valid and does not censor the artist. You have a right to make your product, not for it to be shown or sold anywhere.
My opposition is that GamerGate isn't what it says on the tin. Their actions and the people they target have nothing to do with their overall goal, and the way they do things undermines their agenda.
They're supposed to be about Ethics in Gaming Journalism, but they're far more concerned with Brianna Wu, Randi Harper, Arthur Chu and Chris Kluew and Anita Sarkeesian, none of which are Journalists (Brianna Wu has done a couple of articles for Bustle and Arthur Chu for Salon but that was after the fact.)
They've ignored Destructoid entirely, when it's plainly known they blacklisted a writer and the editor who did it is still there.
They've focused on Gamasutra, an industry paper that had low readership anyway (it's more a branch of the GDC then anything else) based on a unsubstantiated claim of collusion from a blog entry.
There's been a myriad of threats, sockpuppets, dogpiling, sealioning, and general harassment. What happened to Veerender Jubbal was cruel. The level of homophobia and transphobia inside GamerGater is wildly unacceptable. Hell, I got dogpiled by Liana Kerzner's followers because I didn't like her comparing the plight of gamers to that of homosexuals.
I believe that these actions, while possibly propagated by a small subsection of the community and outside agitators, has met insufficient resistance from GamerGate as a whole. They've chosen a decentralized rudderless framework, and it has crippled them in managing their own ethics and morals to the point where I find them invalid as a group to make an ethical inquiry.
There's also a great deal of members of GamerGate who philosophically have no interest in journalism or ethics. They're either right-wing ideologues who have decided to make this another branch of their culture war, or MRAs/Anti-Fems who want to remove SJWs and Liberals from gaming entirely. As such,a lot of the "journalism inquiries" aren't about ethics, but rather identifying liberal and feminist commentators, and trying to find any excuse possible to remove them from gaming, or even worse, to inject right-wing bias instead of seeking a lack of bias.
As a left-leaning feminist male, I feel that allowing GamerGater to flourish would create a gaming scene that wouldn't wish me as a member, much less a liberal feminist woman. I believe that the portrayals in gaming are skewed to be beneficial to white heterosexual males, and skewed to be pejorative to everyone else. I believe we've reached the point in gaming where expecting a better product for all is more then just pixel depth or field-of-view.
I believe GamerGate, whether willing or inadvertently expands the reach of the ideas listed above that I find caustic. The removal of those ideas would align me with GamerGate, but GamerGate has no way to stop doing so, as such, I am directly opposed to GamerGate's continued existence.
I'd like to see the journalism inquiry begin again in a more concentrated form, focused strictly on ethics and with no attempts to introduce new bias into the environment. I am opposed to harassment or bullying in all forms, although I think the over-reliance on victim narratives have impeded both sides ability to take light mockery. I have been opposed to members of "Anti-GamerGate" who have been harassing or doxxing others. I am opposed to /r/GamerGhazi , as I feel mockery and biting has it's place, but shouldn't be the central narrative. I have been conciliatory to members of GamerGate who were harassed and doxxed. I don't believe being harassed entitles you to monetary compensation or the right to harass others unchecked.
As for goals, these are my own - I don't believe Anti-GamerGate to be a group, so much as people unified in opposition to an ideology.
I'd like to see GamerGate either limit its scope to the point where they're talking clearly and concisely about journalistic integrity, with a clear set of goals for the industry, and desired outcomes. If they expect certain concessions, I'd like them to be clear and concise and acknowledged once met. GamerGate currently has no endgame. I'd like them to remove members who are not interested in this goal, and leave non-journalistic liberal commentators and political ideology alone. I'd like to see a focus on funding for gaming sites - I think the biggest corruption in games journalism comes from who's footing the bills.
Either that, or
I'd like GamerGate to become a universal inquiry, looking to improve the quality of the entire gaming sphere, encouraging increased minority representation in gaming without compromising design structure; opposing harassment of all, and eschewing the methodologies that harassers use - anonymous Twitter and message boards, and integrity of journalism, both in journalist relationships with developers, and outlets relationships with publishers. Since this would stand in stark opposition to the bad actors within or around GamerGate, this would also be a positive result.