13 ms·
Title is clickbaity. They did it for a political protest during an official Blizzard tournament stream, not for actions on his own stream or something. He put
by orisho 7y ago
Title is clickbaity. They did it for a political protest during an official Blizzard tournament stream, not for actions on his own stream or something.
He put on a gas mask and called for liberation of HK. I'm with him, but I definitely see why Blizzard has the rule in place, and it would not be right to overlook this - they would then have to be OK with others doing other protests. Blizzard should not pick a side.
- calcifer 7y ago> Blizzard should not pick a side. Not picking a side is siding with the status quo, which is Chinese oppression in Hong Kong.
- orisho 7y agoNot picking a side is not allowing political discussion, no matter who you (or they) perceive to be right. Coincidentally, this is also the choice that makes most sense to a corporation which stands to lose a lot from picking a side. Players will likely respond to sensationalist reporting of this case, but forget about it soon after, while the Chinese government is not gonna go easy on Blizzard picking the other side.
- x220 7y agoBut nearly every large company in America engages in political discussion when they talk about diversity, feminism, and inclusion. I think that's a good thing, but it's clearly not the case that these companies shy away from making progressive statements.
- mlang23 7y agoAll they are doing is saying things which a certain audience wants to hear. Nobody really cares about inclusion or diversity. They just claim to do so, because in this day and age, they will benefit from doing so.
- chii 7y agoThat player has forced blizzard to appear as though they endorsed the protesters. Being protesters for freedom, they ironically did not respect another (unrelated) entity's freedom to choose.
- bmarquez 7y agoIt doesn't cost large companies any money to make feel-good progressive political statements on social media. However when it conflicts with their pocketbook, they stay quiet or internally oppose them (example: Zuckerberg trashing Warren for antitrust and privacy issues).
- ryanlol 7y agoThere shouldn't be room for such cowardice to exist in this world.
- Isinlor 7y agoIn other words they do pick a side - they side with Chinese government, because the communist party has a leverage on them. But we have a leverage too! If we manage to damage their brand and profit, they may decide that censorship is not to their benefit. We need to be loud and clear - communism will not be tolerated. Otherwise, it will start to creep trough Blizzard and many other companies, and limit our freedoms too.
- vkou 7y agoWhich is exactly how sports leagues operate, be they FIFA, the Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NBA... If you expect them to be the high water mark of social justice, you're going to be deeply disappointed. (Meanwhile, various tech firms have been criticized for picking a side, or allegedly picking a side in social conflicts over the past few years... Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently.)
- ajuc 7y agoBlizzard is much more directly supported by money from its customers, it's very easy to boycott online games provider.
- x220 7y agoI think there's a big difference between making a statement that American Democrats would like and making a statement that you don't like a genocidal authoritarian regime doing genocidal authoritarian regime things.
- vkou 7y agoI think to an American organization, it's far more relevant to resist fascism, bigotry, and violation of the rights of <Pick any of the following groups, that currently feel under attack: Women, religious and ethnic minorities, trans persons, native persons> in America, then to worry about how China administers Hong Kong. But, ah, that former would be 'political', and 'picking a side', and 'controversial', because you see, ~half the country thinks (rightly or wrongly) that those things aren't a serious problem. I leave considering what ~half of mainland China thinks (rightly or wrongly) about Hong Kong, and what we should do about widely held, but unjust political opinions as an exercise to the reader.
- x220 7y agoBlizzard is an international company with a ton of customers outside the US
- thefj 7y ago
- ajuc 7y ago> Blizzard should not pick a side. You cannot "not pick a side" in a situation like this. Blizzard clearly picked Chinese money over human rights. They behave rationally as a company, but I hope they will still lose on this. The fact this is a rule changes nothing - they created that rule.
- x220 7y agoIf someone made a statement against Nazi Germany, would it also be appropriate to not pick a side?
- sascha_sl 7y agoIt should be noted that before invading Poland, Nazi Germany and Hitler were not unpopular in the US, and even then public support only faded slowly, so that probably would've been a hotter take. Hindsight is always easier.
- chii 7y agoDuring nazi Germany, the corporation indeed did not pick a side (ala, IBM's equipment was used to do data processing for the holocaust). But, it's too far to say that they (IBM) was pro-holocaust.
- x220 7y agoWhy not? I think the IBM execs were pro-holocaust because they were willing to make money off of the holocaust.
- chii 7y agoPro-making money is not pro-holocaust.
- x220 7y agoSo what extra actions would IBM have to have taken to be pro-holocaust?
- ajuc 7y agoLots of people were selling information about hiding Jews to Germans for money or for saving their lives. Was that "pro-holocaust" or "pro-money"? A lot of people were working as guards, maintenance personel, etc at death camps. Were they "pro-holocaust"? In the end if you helped to make death camps work and had a choice to avoid doing so - you're at fault.
- VicFrank 7y agoThis is the rule in question > Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms. The rule is not "political speech is not allowed" it's "don't make us look bad." Choosing to ban this player is absolutely picking a side, and it's not with the good guys.
- koonsolo 7y agoYou have to ask the question as a company, to allow politics to enter your space. Now it is supporting HK, next time it is against nazi's, next time maybe against Trump. Once you disallow one, you will "pick a side". I'm not saying this ban was good or bad, I'm just saying it's more complex than picking side in that debate. Maybe they just don't want to get into the shit of any political debate. But for the rest, all the support for HK. Maybe this ban brings it even more in the news.
- glogla 7y agoWhat you're saying seems to be built on assumption that all "politics" is the same. It absolutely isn't. Evil (fascism, concentration camps, ehtnic cleansing, ...) and fighting against evil, are both political stances, but they are very different. And "let's not interfere with evil because it would be politics (or affect our bottom line)" is definitely political stance - it's picking the evil side.
- koonsolo 7y agoIs Trump evil? It's not clear to me, so maybe you have the answer. At some point, the line of evilness becomes so thin that you will have to "pick a side" if you have done it before. Easier to just not go down that route. But still, is Trump evil?
- 7y ago
- tyfon 7y agoSometimes you just got to voice your opinion [1] Blizzard chose money over human rights and they will have to stand for it themselves. They've already picked a side, money. Now they lost my money though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salu...
- Iv 7y agoSame here. I wanted to believe that even despite Activision buying Blizzard, it would stay an awesome company. I should have known better. Starcraft 1 was the first game I ever bought. I feel sad to have to boycott them now.
- recoil 7y agoOne less launcher I have to have installed on my PC at least.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoThey should have an explicit rule against political displays like they have in football (I mean soccer). That way it's clear for everyone rather than having a catch-all rule that is arbitrary and does not tell players where the line is.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThen there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. Then any hint of something that might, conceivably be a stance or salute. No patterns, pictures or logos of any kind, unless it's of our sponsors. Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political. They deserved every bit of anti-FIFA vitriol the popular press and internet managed to come up with.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago> Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. No because they would not allow anything. > Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political If you start allowing this sort of display to commemorate a war then you open the door to plenty of highly political displays because wars are obviously highly political and sensitive issues. Even in the UK wearing a poppy or not is political.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoHardly, it's a symbol of remembrance of dead, not of a war. It's a hell of a stretch to call the use of a white poppy political. Most remembrance ceremonies have veterans of both sides attending, and are used for reconcilliation - unlike e.g. WW2 anniversaries such as the now comically overblown D Day fun days.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoWar dead. If they start to allow one country to commemorate their war dead then they have to allow other countries to do the same, and as said these can be very political and sensitive issues. And then if they allow that why not another commemoration? Thus it is sensible not to allow anything.
- Iv 7y agoAnd what's wrong about letting whoever won a tournament have their 10 seconds of free speech to pass on a message? Are we so afraid of free speech that we must insist on compartmentalizing subjects in that way? Just have Blizzard make a statement saying "That person's opinion is only his own, not Blizzard's" and be done with it. And yes, that means the next one may shout about veganism or white supremacy. So what? That will benefit or hurt the people speaking, not Blizzard.