12 ms·

Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle. Blizzard i

by zwaps 7y ago

Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle. Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. The Chinese government tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion. If that is indeed the way, then our society and the discourse therein is no longer free, and the CCP has won. We need to keep these firms in our mind. We need to keep a list of when this happens, and we need to sanction this as best as we can. Similarly, anyone standing up to censorship should have our support. I can be pro HK, or I can be pro China, and I can voice opinions because doing so either way is an equally valid form of free expression. But it can not be that one side gets pre-emptively censored to appease the CCP, or any actor with the power to DEFINE the bar of what is reasonable expression of opinions.

hanselot 7y ago
First they came for Linus. Then they came for Stallman. A week after Stack Exchange fell. And still nobody was willing to say it like it is. Soon the endgame will appear and censorship will be applied directly to thought, as if it isn't already...
nickthemagicman 7y ago
So far I've noticed: 1> New Top Gun Movie removed a patch on Tom Cruises jacketdue to Chinese funding. 2> NBA issued an apology for an owner showing Hong Kong support and China stopped NBA broadcasts. 3> Blizzard 4> Apple Hides Taiwans Flag emoji Sounds trivial but they're the tip of the iceberg for censoring freedom of expression based on a DICTATOR's whim. Xi "Winnie The Poop" is an autocrat and once he sealed his grip on power and lifted term limits. The fact is, the people are fighting a restriction on their freedom, in order to benefit the powerful. This is a tale as old as humanity itself. This is also what I fear will happen to America if we're not careful. I think we need to be united in standing up against restrictions on the freedom of expression.
- adolph 7y ago
  It is “Pooh” with an H not a P at the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh
  - _ZeD_ 7y ago
    wooosh
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    That was intentional :)
- johnfactorial 7y ago
  5> Vans removes innocuous custom shoe design https://www.cnn.com/style/article/vans-hong-kong-intl-hnk-scli/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/vans-hong-kong-intl-hnk-sc...
- whateveracct 7y ago
  CCTV just banned the NBA because Adam Silver defended Morey's free speech and refused to punish him.
  - johnfactorial 7y ago
    ”We’re strongly dissatisfied and oppose Adam Silver’s claim to support Morey’s right to freedom of expression,” CCTV said in a statement. “We believe that any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech.” Chinese state television clearly stating that the organization (and government that manages it) does not hold to the principles China agreed to when they voted in favor of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/8/20904593/nba-china-commissioner-adam-silver-no-apology https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/8/20904593/nba-china-co... https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
StevePerkins 7y ago
> "a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion" Umm... yeah... but... oh boy... okay look, I AGREE with your ultimate conclusion here. But I think you might need a new rubric which with to argue it. Because as-written, this calls to mind half of all social interaction within United States culture today. To differentiate these things, you have to tap dance around the "non-insulting opinions" qualifier. Which is kind of a mess, because we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be determined by the insulted. I do think there's a great (and obvious) point here. I'd love to see it phrased differently, because that might be helpful more broadly.
- aesh2Xa1 7y ago
  > we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be defined by the insulted. I know that is not an opinion I share. I suspect it is not one many people share at all. I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. Ideas have a place in the open. If they're going to die somewhere, it needs to be in public discourse.
  - sbarre 7y ago
    > I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. I think you might be allowing your bias to zero in on one particular group here. Outrage politics is everyone's tool these days, not just one "side" (if you insist on picking sides). I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands".. These are examples of using ideological offence to an idea or concept as a way to shut down discourse.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      > I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands" You’re mixing up two different things. There’s a difference between shutting down discourse, and expressing an unwillingness to compromise. The two examples you give are the latter. There is nothing wrong with being unwilling to compromise, and expressing that in an emotional way (e.g. the Resist movement).
bsder 7y ago
> Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle. Boycott the Hearthstone pro players/streamers. Blizzard won't notice the money from a couple hundred people going away. The streamers/pros on the other hand will most certainly notice even a couple of people going away and will leave Hearthstone to rot. Once the pros leave Hearthstone for another game, Hearthstone will die. THAT will get Blizzard's attention.
- cabalamat 7y ago
  > Once the pros leave Hearthstone for another game, Hearthstone will die. THAT will get Blizzard's attention. Why would Blizzard care, if they are still making money on the other games people left Heathstone for?
  - zipwitch 7y ago
    There are non-Blizzard alternatives to most (if not all) of Blizzard's offerings. Magic: The Gathering Online instead of Hearthstone. League of Legends or other MOBAs instead of Overwatch. SW:TOR, Shroud of the Avatar, or even Destiny to scratch the MMO itch.
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      League of Legends is made by Riot, who is owned by Tencent, a Chinese conglomerate.
      - ekianjo 7y ago
        And anything by Epic or on the Epic Games Store also benefits a Chinese conglomerate so avoid them like the plague.
eanthy 7y ago
ok
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Might I propose the following idea: Suspending a player in order to curtail their speech because of China's politically motivated demands is, itself, a political act.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cm2187 7y ago
I agree with your position but it is at odd with the general de-platforming movement. Where banning people from platforms where they can express their opinion seems to be now an acceptable form of political discourse.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  That's not what's happening. People are being de-platformed for carrying out or inciting harassment and violence. The only thing that's changed is that we've decided that it's unacceptable to hide behind passive speech when it's obvious to a reasonable observer what you mean to do. E.g., "I heard there might be a fire in this theater!", "My friend says there's a fire in this theater!", "It'd be great if someone yelled 'Fire!' in this theater," might not get you criminally prosecuted, but it's perfectly reasonable for a theater to ban you after the nth time that you've made an alarmist reference to fire on their premises.
  - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
    >hide behind passive speech when it's obvious to a reasonable observer This is so overloaded with subjectivity, and it's the main problem of why regulating speech remains problematic and dangerous. I can apply this statement to anything and validate what I claim is the baseline for objectivity.
    - bsanr2 7y ago
      Well, sometimes subjectivity is necessary. Our systems of justice are loaded with reasonability and community standards tests, because the ultimate arbiter of right or wrong in cases of harassment or morality often is, "Did it make someone feel bad?". I guess that sucks for the people who don't care about making others feels bad, but having to consider what your actions (speech is an action) might mean for others down the line is generally considered prudent. All that's happened now is that that notion's been given teeth.
UI_at_80x24 7y ago
>boycott Hearthstone Sure no problem! I'm still boycotting blizzard because of how they handled the bnetd situation.
dm3730 7y ago
> In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. Who is "our" in this? If you mean USA, then are you sure about your claim? Eg: "Guy chooses to kneel on the field because kids were getting shot, guy gets canned.". How is that significantly different than what is happening in this case?
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  Retribution against the kneelers was met with a ton of protest if I recall correctly. So it's a great example of why, yes, we should protest this too.
- lettergram 7y ago
  I think it’s a bit different. In this case you’re economically punishing the responsible party - not trying to raise awareness (make a scene). I can silently stop playing Hearthstone and the effect would be felt. I’m not wasting other people’s time or breaking a contract. In regards to the kneeling specifically, my impression was it was free publicity to the players. Honestly, looked like they were taking advantage of the situation, a way to get free press for themselves. I know I wasn’t the only person who felt this. That’s likely part of the reason they were canned.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    Ah yes, how dare those black players lift their heads up and 'make a scene'. What grifters they are, taking advantage of their blackness to promote themselves.
- shaneprrlt 7y ago
  Honestly, you've changed my mind right here about the NFL issue by putting it into this perspective. I always thought Kaepernick had the right to kneel, but that the NFL had the right to bench the player as well. I thought the President, being a US citizen, also had the right to be raucous about the issue as many politicians were, as long as it didn't extend into actual executive action. The reason people in the US might find this action offensive (the reason I do) is because it supports a communist government and I'm sick of US-based MNCs cow-tailing to China instead of taking a principled stand for Western values, but that should include the NFL supporting Kaepernick's right to free expression as well. Perhaps the same reasoning can extend to so-called "cancel culture" of people getting fired for expressing their private opinions online.
ekianjo 7y ago
Boycotts usually don't achieve anything (historically most boycotts have had no effect whatsoever), so it's hardly going to be a good solution in the short term. Legal action (if possible, but I doubt so since a private corporation can basically do what they want according to their rules) would be better. The best would be to simply throw a continuous torrent of tweets, videos and articles to ridicule Blizzard and Hearthstone and its parent company as long as possible. Public shaming tends to bring more valid results.
- Beltiras 7y ago
  I'm not giving them a red cent. They can be anti-democratic on someone else's dime.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    You not giving them money wont hit their bottomline. However, you blaming them online and amplifying other people doing so is more likely to make them feel bad about it.
    - Beltiras 7y ago
      I'm also doing that. I know lots of people using their games. Liberal folks that will mind this.
      - mrkstu 7y ago
        This one cuts across partisan lines- and in fact conservatives/libertarians are more likely to be affected by corporate censorship nowadays, and more than happy to push back on obvious over-reach/kowtowing like this.
    - maximente 7y ago
      i wish people would stop trotting out this cynical nonsense: it's the same tired argument that people use about why they don't vote (because "it doesn't matter"). it does matter. it might not matter very much, but it does matter. it changes the amount of money the company receives. that cannot be argued against. more importantly, it also empowers others who may be open to the idea to do the same. it can spread the idea that "hey, yeah, i don't need to patronize this company". if enough people do this, change can be enacted. see loot boxes, or consuming less junk, or ..... if however this cynicism causes people to stay home on election day, or do nothing in their lives bc everything is inevitably status quo, or keep patronizing companies like this, then nothing will ever change. so please keep this factual inaccuracy out of discussions like these: it's not productive and demonstrably false, and arguably harmful to contributing to "wokeness" generally.
CathedralBorrow 7y ago
Isn't that cancel culture though?
- 50656E6973 7y ago
  Yep: >tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    Well, can we say that people have their feelings hurt by Blizzard's opinion here, and try to make it normal that everyone should boycott them for it?
    - mrkstu 7y ago
      No, very simply they are protesting censorship, which is the opposite of what you're implying. You are saying that boycotting is itself censorship- no, it is a tool, that can be used by many people, with many POVs, and like most tools it can be used as a weapon either in defense of liberty or against it.
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        I'm not saying that, I was just wondering out loud where people draw the line. Please don't put words in my mouth.
        mrkstu 7y ago
        Seemed like a clear implication. Boycotts and cancel culture travel together at times but they are themselves orthogonal.
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
tpurves 7y ago
A better solution would be for all hearthstone pro players to start talking about hong kong on solidarity.
- bovermyer 7y ago
  I agree. What is Blizzard going to do, cancel Hearthstone esports?
- Beltiras 7y ago
  Here's a list of some of the personalities I follow: @TrumpSC @Kripparrian @G2Thijs None of them have spoken out. Perhaps they would if asked.
- falcolas 7y ago
  That would be the equivalent of asking them to quit (Or rather get fired from) their jobs. They aren’t paid well enough on average to do this easily. I hope they do stand up for what they see as right, though. I just understand why they might not.
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
To that end, I've started a list on github https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina
- donpott 7y ago
  Would "having links to the chinese government" make the cut for this list? because if so, you can add Tencent, and by extension Epic games, Reddit and Riot games.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Who can't you add to that list, though? According to the Financial Times, Tencent alone has board seats on more than 400 companies.
    - brazzledazzle 7y ago
      Seems kind of nuts that a country with such a drastically different governance and economic model is allowed to exert (effectively direct) control over so many companies. Seems like a glaring weakness.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        I should point out it's 400 companies across the world, not just in the US. Still, the national grid of my European country is controlled by a literally state-owned Chinese company, so Tencent seems tame in comparison.
  - ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
    I think perhaps it be best to limit the list to instances of actual action being taken, rather than just ownership, but I don't know for sure
- mercutio2 7y ago
  You started a list about musical performers in China? [EDIT: I see, it was deliberate wordplay from South Park. Sorry!]
holstvoogd 7y ago
It seems account deletion is mysteriously unavailable at the moment for me due to 'too many attempts' and now my 2nd factor verification had been blocked :| EDIT: nm, was on the wrong subdomain. Account removal requested & all my blizzard games gone. I hope they'll ask me why.
- lakkal 7y ago
  I just cancelled my WoW subscription. It did ask for reasons; in the free-form text box, I just typed 'Hong Kong'.
christopherscot 7y ago
Legends is better anyway ya'll ;)
turk73 7y ago
What you are not yet understanding is that the globalists want the level of freedom in China as the BASELINE for all.
GuB-42 7y ago
It happened during an event sponsored by Blizzard. Player may have their opinions but they are paid (through prizes) and broadcast by Blizzard. It means that Blizzard gets to set the rules about what can be said. And in case it wasn't obvious, it is explicitly stated in the competition rules. There is a difference between tolerating Blitzchung's opinions and letting him hijack an interview to make a political statement that has nothing to do with Hearthstone. I mean, he appeared wearing goggles and a gas mask, and the first (an only) thing he said was "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" in a post-game interview.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Doubt that would be justiciable in most countries, other wise you could sack a Premier league player because they supported a particular political party. Gaming companies cant set up pro leagues and treat players as if it was still football in the 1950's
  - Aunche 7y ago
    The NFL suspended Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem. That's mild compared hijacking a speech with a gasmask and calling for revolution.
    - bena 7y ago
      Kaepernick was not suspended by the NFL at any point during the anthem protests. Neither was he fined. There is nothing in the NFL rulebook about what you should do during the anthem. Kaepernick suspects that his activism is the reason no team has signed him since he became a free agent. And he may be right. But he was not fired, suspended, or in any way punished officially for what he did.
      - Aunche 7y ago
        Fair enough. I don't really follow football. I still think that he would have been suspended if he put on a black panther beret and called for a revolution.
cabalamat 7y ago
> Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. No, we need to boycott Blizzard.
mapcars 7y ago
>Then we have to boycott Hearthstone You mean Blizzard?
quotemstr 7y ago
Give me a break. When companies censor speech HN likes, it's all about how we have to boycott companies to preserve our society. When it's speech HN doesn't like, it's all about how censorship is actually good and that companies are just "showing people the door" via their freedom of association. People around here need to make up their minds. If you want to object to censorship, great. But if you do, you need to do it as a general principle, and that means tolerating speech you don't like too. You don't get to just lean on freedom of speech selectively. The hypocrisy of supporting corporate censorship against things you like and opposing it against things you don't --- well, it's breathtaking.
- clucas 7y ago
  > If you want to object to censorship, great. But if you do, you need to do it as a general principle Why? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Blizzard, you should ban people who make racist statements from your tournaments, but you should allow people whose who voice support for pro-democracy protestors to compete. And if you decide not to do that, I won't watch your tourneys or buy your games." Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others, and acting on that preference? Note that no one is saying the government should use its monopoly on force to ban speech - we are talking about private action.
  - leshow 7y ago
    > Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others Not OP, but I believe they are talking about objecting to censorship ostensibly because of freedom of speech, and then not objecting to other censorship. If you don't believe in freedom of speech then there is no issue, if you do, you can object to the content of someone's speech, but not their right to express it. That is, if you care about not being a hypocrite.
    - katzenjam 7y ago
      You've created a false dichotomy between an absolute right to free speech and absolute disregard for free speech. There's a third possibility, which is to believe that freedom of speech is an important right, but not an absolute right that trumps all others. One version of this belief says that freedom of speech is useful to society because it allows dissenting views to be resolved through debate rather than violent conflict. It would be reasonable to argue that speech that incites or promotes violent conflict doesn't qualify for protection on these grounds. Another version of this belief says that freedom of speech is just, because society should only intrude on an individual's freedom (e.g. by preventing them from speaking) when the exercise of that freedom threatens another individual's freedom. Again, speech that incites or promotes intruding on other people's freedom, to an extent greater than the intrusion caused by preventing the speech, could reasonably be excluded from protection on these grounds. It's obvious how either of these beliefs about free speech would be compatible with censoring speech that promotes violence or the overthrow of democracy, while at the same time being compatible with objecting to the censorship of other speech. But here's where it gets interesting for me. From the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are threatening the stability of a society that within living memory has seen periods of instability that killed millions. From their point of view, the demonstrators are acting violently and putting millions of lives at risk. I wouldn't personally argue that speaking out in favour of the demonstrators is promoting violence. But the line is less clear than I'd like.
jmcdoa 7y ago
The first thing I did when hearing this news is look into how I could delete my Hearthsone account. This sets such a dangerous precedent if Blizzard gets away with no consequences.
ben_jones 7y ago
From /r/hearthstone >https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201910/acd1e702747963b5e6d65eca7f02b973.JPG https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201910/acd1e702747963b5e6d6... I'm a heartstone player from Taiwan. Just here to share information from another aspect. The picture above is the comment from the official hearthstone account on China social website. (the V means verified) translation:We strongly condemn the player and the casters on what happened in the game last weekend ,and we firmly DISAPPROVE people to state their own political POV in any tournament.The player will be banned from the tournament,and the casters will never be granted the chance to cast any official tournament from now on. Besides,we will firmly PROTECT THE PRIDE OF THE COUNTRY just like what we always do. —— Remember Blizzard is also the company that prominently feature Pride during many Overwatch events on western streams - but didn’t show the same content on Eastern streams. I’m deleting anything I have of Blizzard-Activision not because it’ll hurt their bottom line, but so I can know I’m doing the right thing for this particular situation.
ushypocritesjd 7y ago
Oh please spare me the narrative that America is somehow above this. Look up the history of government censorship of TV, court decisions that limit speech, people getting fired from AMERICAN companies in America for comments on personal social media accounts, how quickly one gets shutdown here even for suggesting that our culture is chasing ephemeral economic models to the point of destroying our environment for the benefit of billionaires and you’ll get scolded about not understanding economics and how smart people have been discussing this for years and the economics keep coming out just so that they benefit the elite. Oh yeah and non-whites in cages. Again. The brain washing to protect American power is just as strong. The gentlemen’s agreement is wrapped in a warmer narrative. You’re being Machiavellian and not having a raw look at the reality.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 7y ago
You may need to attach scopes to "we" and "our society." I assume you're referring to Americans and the United States? Blizzard/Activision is a multinational corporation. Incorporated in the US, but beholden to more cultural norms than just the US ones.
- pault 7y ago
  Anyone that lives in a democratic country with legally protected civil rights.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Not just Hearthstone, but all Blizzard products.
- alimbada 7y ago
  They're owned by Activision so all Activision products if you're going to do it properly.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Good point.
onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
Exactly this. I hope that what people see is that we've been in a cultural war with China for 20+ years. Now that the Chinese market is big enough, Western companies are dropping any standards they have to keep access to the market. Individual companies are not going to fight this war. I don't like Trump as much as anyone, but when Trump adds some tariff on Chinese goods everyone goes batshit insane in the US. The Chinese government almost every day shuts some company or product off from access to the Chinese market for not doing something they say. But until the Hong Kong protests, it seems like no one cared. I hope now that it's LITERALLY, blantantly, and obviously about freedoms and human rights -- it's enough to get people to care. China should lose access to the WTO if it forces any company anywhere (including in China) to censor anything in order to gain or keep access to its market. End of discussion.
reaperducer 7y ago
We need to keep a list of when this happens I would love to see a list like this. Unfortunately, it would contain the names of virtually every airline. But I would still like to see it.
ggregoire 7y ago
There are 1000 reasons to boycott this game. It's one more on the list.
alienallys 7y ago
I have made similar set of argument, but against a religion. That an archaic religious dogma is winning over 21st century progressive principles. I got shut and banned for displaying something-phobia.
- dang 7y ago
  Not sure if you're talking about here or somewhere Blizzardy, but as far as here goes: you're right—religious flamewar isn't allowed, you've posted such comments before, and we ban accounts that do that. Comments like these, which users correctly flagged, would probably have gotten you banned here if we had seen them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20645480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20645480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20662370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20662370
treis 7y ago
>Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. I think Blizzard has a legitimate "time and place" argument here. They shouldn't regulate competitors speech across the board but I think it's reasonable to mandate that interviews associated with official events focus on Hearthstone and stay away from controversial topics. Of course Blizzard really stepped into it by citing the "brings you into public disrepute" rule. That makes them look like their taking China's side. And this is a full on Streisand effect. The banning brought way more attention (at least in the West) than the initial interview did. Few of us would have even known it happened without hte banning.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  If they had just kicked him out of the tournament, I'd definitely be on that side of things. I don't want a world where all competitions are full of people yelling about hot-button issues. But banning him for a year is so obviously disproportionate, it's hard to see how it could have happened if not for fear of China.
  - __s 7y ago
    Also firing the interviewers
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    The tournament was already over, and he had won. They took back his prize money.
- throwawaypolicy 7y ago
  It more than "looks like" Blizzard is taking China's side. They have outright said that they are in their chinese language statement > We strongly condemn the player and the casters on what happened in the game last weekend ,and we firmly DISAPPROVE people to state their own political POV in any tournament. The player will be banned from the tournament,and the casters will never be granted the chance to cast any official tournament from now on. Besides,we will firmly PROTECT THE PRIDE OF THE COUNTRY just like what we always do. (translation taken from another comment on HN, google finds lots of sources with similar translations, including news articles from reputable papers)
taobility 7y ago
1. Chinese government didn't involve this. It's pure Blizzard's behavior. 2. As you said, you can boycott Hearthstone or Blizzard as the consequence of their actions 3. Meanwhile, Chinese players can also boycott them as well as the consequence of Blizzard's ignorance 4. So at the end, it's Blizzard's decision based on their interest
iamsb 7y ago
Would you oppose firing of James Damore as well? Look I understand that we need to have free expression and free speech. Absolutely. But a business wants to protect itself from negative political reputation. If the gamer was talking about say LGBT rights, and his opinions were considered against the current acceptable position on the matter, and then he was banned, I am sure everyone would have applauded blizzard. Let us not put burden of being politically correct on free market corporations.
- bena 7y ago
  Yeah, it's a tricky situation. This could be dismissed with the phrase "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" that gets bandied about when certain people get deplatformed. By going after Blizzard for suspending this guy for his speech, you're saying that you care more about the targets than the action. That certain actions are ok as long as we're hurting the right people. So that's what they actually have to defend. They can't hide behind "free speech" now that it's speech they support. They have to make the case as to why this speech should get a pass while other speech should not.
  - iamsb 7y ago
    FWIW worth, I have limited knowledge of gaming communities. Most of my concern have been with behavior of twitter when it comes to policing content, specially anti-Islam content which violates blasphemy laws in certain countries like Pakistan. For long time I was of the opinion that twitter is wrong in the way it bans people or removes content which violates these laws. And that twitter should stop operating in those countries instead. Since then I have changed my views about this. I think twitter as a company has every right to operate where ever it pleases and if it means adhering to local laws, so be it.
- dontreact 7y ago
  Supporting HK protests is very different from falsely claiming that the hiring bar was lowered for women (it said this in the doc, I know enough people at Google who participate in hiring committee to know that it was a false statement).
cryoshon 7y ago
i'm on board with a boycott of blizzard and also activision. we can't continue with appeasement of a totalitarian state bent on controlling the discourse of the world if we want to claim that we are a democracy. unless we're willing to lose money to stay true to our ideals, our ideals aren't real whatsoever.
ryanmercer 7y ago
>Then we have to boycott Hearthstone Honestly never even heard of it so that's pretty easy then.

by zwaps 7y ago

hanselot 7y ago

First they came for Linus. Then they came for Stallman. A week after Stack Exchange fell. And still nobody was willing to say it like it is. Soon the endgame will appear and censorship will be applied directly to thought, as if it isn't already...

nickthemagicman 7y ago

So far I've noticed: 1> New Top Gun Movie removed a patch on Tom Cruises jacketdue to Chinese funding. 2> NBA issued an apology for an owner showing Hong Kong support and China stopped NBA broadcasts. 3> Blizzard 4> Apple Hides Taiwans Flag emoji Sounds trivial but they're the tip of the iceberg for censoring freedom of expression based on a DICTATOR's whim. Xi "Winnie The Poop" is an autocrat and once he sealed his grip on power and lifted term limits. The fact is, the people are fighting a restriction on their freedom, in order to benefit the powerful. This is a tale as old as humanity itself. This is also what I fear will happen to America if we're not careful. I think we need to be united in standing up against restrictions on the freedom of expression.

adolph 7y ago
It is “Pooh” with an H not a P at the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh
- _ZeD_ 7y ago
  wooosh
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  That was intentional :)
johnfactorial 7y ago
5> Vans removes innocuous custom shoe design https://www.cnn.com/style/article/vans-hong-kong-intl-hnk-scli/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/vans-hong-kong-intl-hnk-sc...
whateveracct 7y ago
CCTV just banned the NBA because Adam Silver defended Morey's free speech and refused to punish him.
- johnfactorial 7y ago
  ”We’re strongly dissatisfied and oppose Adam Silver’s claim to support Morey’s right to freedom of expression,” CCTV said in a statement. “We believe that any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech.” Chinese state television clearly stating that the organization (and government that manages it) does not hold to the principles China agreed to when they voted in favor of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/8/20904593/nba-china-commissioner-adam-silver-no-apology https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/8/20904593/nba-china-co... https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

StevePerkins 7y ago

> "a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion" Umm... yeah... but... oh boy... okay look, I AGREE with your ultimate conclusion here. But I think you might need a new rubric which with to argue it. Because as-written, this calls to mind half of all social interaction within United States culture today. To differentiate these things, you have to tap dance around the "non-insulting opinions" qualifier. Which is kind of a mess, because we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be determined by the insulted. I do think there's a great (and obvious) point here. I'd love to see it phrased differently, because that might be helpful more broadly.

aesh2Xa1 7y ago
> we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be defined by the insulted. I know that is not an opinion I share. I suspect it is not one many people share at all. I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. Ideas have a place in the open. If they're going to die somewhere, it needs to be in public discourse.
- sbarre 7y ago
  > I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. I think you might be allowing your bias to zero in on one particular group here. Outrage politics is everyone's tool these days, not just one "side" (if you insist on picking sides). I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands".. These are examples of using ideological offence to an idea or concept as a way to shut down discourse.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands" You’re mixing up two different things. There’s a difference between shutting down discourse, and expressing an unwillingness to compromise. The two examples you give are the latter. There is nothing wrong with being unwilling to compromise, and expressing that in an emotional way (e.g. the Resist movement).

bsder 7y ago

> Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle. Boycott the Hearthstone pro players/streamers. Blizzard won't notice the money from a couple hundred people going away. The streamers/pros on the other hand will most certainly notice even a couple of people going away and will leave Hearthstone to rot. Once the pros leave Hearthstone for another game, Hearthstone will die. THAT will get Blizzard's attention.

cabalamat 7y ago
> Once the pros leave Hearthstone for another game, Hearthstone will die. THAT will get Blizzard's attention. Why would Blizzard care, if they are still making money on the other games people left Heathstone for?
- zipwitch 7y ago
  There are non-Blizzard alternatives to most (if not all) of Blizzard's offerings. Magic: The Gathering Online instead of Hearthstone. League of Legends or other MOBAs instead of Overwatch. SW:TOR, Shroud of the Avatar, or even Destiny to scratch the MMO itch.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    League of Legends is made by Riot, who is owned by Tencent, a Chinese conglomerate.
    - ekianjo 7y ago
      And anything by Epic or on the Epic Games Store also benefits a Chinese conglomerate so avoid them like the plague.

eanthy 7y ago

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Might I propose the following idea: Suspending a player in order to curtail their speech because of China's politically motivated demands is, itself, a political act.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cm2187 7y ago

I agree with your position but it is at odd with the general de-platforming movement. Where banning people from platforms where they can express their opinion seems to be now an acceptable form of political discourse.

bsanr2 7y ago
That's not what's happening. People are being de-platformed for carrying out or inciting harassment and violence. The only thing that's changed is that we've decided that it's unacceptable to hide behind passive speech when it's obvious to a reasonable observer what you mean to do. E.g., "I heard there might be a fire in this theater!", "My friend says there's a fire in this theater!", "It'd be great if someone yelled 'Fire!' in this theater," might not get you criminally prosecuted, but it's perfectly reasonable for a theater to ban you after the nth time that you've made an alarmist reference to fire on their premises.
- LMYahooTFY 7y ago
  >hide behind passive speech when it's obvious to a reasonable observer This is so overloaded with subjectivity, and it's the main problem of why regulating speech remains problematic and dangerous. I can apply this statement to anything and validate what I claim is the baseline for objectivity.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    Well, sometimes subjectivity is necessary. Our systems of justice are loaded with reasonability and community standards tests, because the ultimate arbiter of right or wrong in cases of harassment or morality often is, "Did it make someone feel bad?". I guess that sucks for the people who don't care about making others feels bad, but having to consider what your actions (speech is an action) might mean for others down the line is generally considered prudent. All that's happened now is that that notion's been given teeth.

UI_at_80x24 7y ago

>boycott Hearthstone Sure no problem! I'm still boycotting blizzard because of how they handled the bnetd situation.

dm3730 7y ago

> In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. Who is "our" in this? If you mean USA, then are you sure about your claim? Eg: "Guy chooses to kneel on the field because kids were getting shot, guy gets canned.". How is that significantly different than what is happening in this case?

Waterluvian 7y ago
Retribution against the kneelers was met with a ton of protest if I recall correctly. So it's a great example of why, yes, we should protest this too.
lettergram 7y ago
I think it’s a bit different. In this case you’re economically punishing the responsible party - not trying to raise awareness (make a scene). I can silently stop playing Hearthstone and the effect would be felt. I’m not wasting other people’s time or breaking a contract. In regards to the kneeling specifically, my impression was it was free publicity to the players. Honestly, looked like they were taking advantage of the situation, a way to get free press for themselves. I know I wasn’t the only person who felt this. That’s likely part of the reason they were canned.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  Ah yes, how dare those black players lift their heads up and 'make a scene'. What grifters they are, taking advantage of their blackness to promote themselves.
shaneprrlt 7y ago
Honestly, you've changed my mind right here about the NFL issue by putting it into this perspective. I always thought Kaepernick had the right to kneel, but that the NFL had the right to bench the player as well. I thought the President, being a US citizen, also had the right to be raucous about the issue as many politicians were, as long as it didn't extend into actual executive action. The reason people in the US might find this action offensive (the reason I do) is because it supports a communist government and I'm sick of US-based MNCs cow-tailing to China instead of taking a principled stand for Western values, but that should include the NFL supporting Kaepernick's right to free expression as well. Perhaps the same reasoning can extend to so-called "cancel culture" of people getting fired for expressing their private opinions online.

ekianjo 7y ago

Boycotts usually don't achieve anything (historically most boycotts have had no effect whatsoever), so it's hardly going to be a good solution in the short term. Legal action (if possible, but I doubt so since a private corporation can basically do what they want according to their rules) would be better. The best would be to simply throw a continuous torrent of tweets, videos and articles to ridicule Blizzard and Hearthstone and its parent company as long as possible. Public shaming tends to bring more valid results.

Beltiras 7y ago
I'm not giving them a red cent. They can be anti-democratic on someone else's dime.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  You not giving them money wont hit their bottomline. However, you blaming them online and amplifying other people doing so is more likely to make them feel bad about it.
  - Beltiras 7y ago
    I'm also doing that. I know lots of people using their games. Liberal folks that will mind this.
    - mrkstu 7y ago
      This one cuts across partisan lines- and in fact conservatives/libertarians are more likely to be affected by corporate censorship nowadays, and more than happy to push back on obvious over-reach/kowtowing like this.
  - maximente 7y ago
    i wish people would stop trotting out this cynical nonsense: it's the same tired argument that people use about why they don't vote (because "it doesn't matter"). it does matter. it might not matter very much, but it does matter. it changes the amount of money the company receives. that cannot be argued against. more importantly, it also empowers others who may be open to the idea to do the same. it can spread the idea that "hey, yeah, i don't need to patronize this company". if enough people do this, change can be enacted. see loot boxes, or consuming less junk, or ..... if however this cynicism causes people to stay home on election day, or do nothing in their lives bc everything is inevitably status quo, or keep patronizing companies like this, then nothing will ever change. so please keep this factual inaccuracy out of discussions like these: it's not productive and demonstrably false, and arguably harmful to contributing to "wokeness" generally.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago

Isn't that cancel culture though?

50656E6973 7y ago
Yep: >tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  Well, can we say that people have their feelings hurt by Blizzard's opinion here, and try to make it normal that everyone should boycott them for it?
  - mrkstu 7y ago
    No, very simply they are protesting censorship, which is the opposite of what you're implying. You are saying that boycotting is itself censorship- no, it is a tool, that can be used by many people, with many POVs, and like most tools it can be used as a weapon either in defense of liberty or against it.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      I'm not saying that, I was just wondering out loud where people draw the line. Please don't put words in my mouth.
      - mrkstu 7y ago
        Seemed like a clear implication. Boycotts and cancel culture travel together at times but they are themselves orthogonal.
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago

tpurves 7y ago

A better solution would be for all hearthstone pro players to start talking about hong kong on solidarity.

bovermyer 7y ago
I agree. What is Blizzard going to do, cancel Hearthstone esports?
Beltiras 7y ago
Here's a list of some of the personalities I follow: @TrumpSC @Kripparrian @G2Thijs None of them have spoken out. Perhaps they would if asked.
falcolas 7y ago
That would be the equivalent of asking them to quit (Or rather get fired from) their jobs. They aren’t paid well enough on average to do this easily. I hope they do stand up for what they see as right, though. I just understand why they might not.

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

To that end, I've started a list on github https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina

donpott 7y ago
Would "having links to the chinese government" make the cut for this list? because if so, you can add Tencent, and by extension Epic games, Reddit and Riot games.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Who can't you add to that list, though? According to the Financial Times, Tencent alone has board seats on more than 400 companies.
  - brazzledazzle 7y ago
    Seems kind of nuts that a country with such a drastically different governance and economic model is allowed to exert (effectively direct) control over so many companies. Seems like a glaring weakness.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I should point out it's 400 companies across the world, not just in the US. Still, the national grid of my European country is controlled by a literally state-owned Chinese company, so Tencent seems tame in comparison.
- ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
  I think perhaps it be best to limit the list to instances of actual action being taken, rather than just ownership, but I don't know for sure
mercutio2 7y ago
You started a list about musical performers in China? [EDIT: I see, it was deliberate wordplay from South Park. Sorry!]

holstvoogd 7y ago

It seems account deletion is mysteriously unavailable at the moment for me due to 'too many attempts' and now my 2nd factor verification had been blocked :| EDIT: nm, was on the wrong subdomain. Account removal requested & all my blizzard games gone. I hope they'll ask me why.

lakkal 7y ago
I just cancelled my WoW subscription. It did ask for reasons; in the free-form text box, I just typed 'Hong Kong'.

christopherscot 7y ago

Legends is better anyway ya'll ;)

turk73 7y ago

What you are not yet understanding is that the globalists want the level of freedom in China as the BASELINE for all.

GuB-42 7y ago

It happened during an event sponsored by Blizzard. Player may have their opinions but they are paid (through prizes) and broadcast by Blizzard. It means that Blizzard gets to set the rules about what can be said. And in case it wasn't obvious, it is explicitly stated in the competition rules. There is a difference between tolerating Blitzchung's opinions and letting him hijack an interview to make a political statement that has nothing to do with Hearthstone. I mean, he appeared wearing goggles and a gas mask, and the first (an only) thing he said was "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" in a post-game interview.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
Doubt that would be justiciable in most countries, other wise you could sack a Premier league player because they supported a particular political party. Gaming companies cant set up pro leagues and treat players as if it was still football in the 1950's
- Aunche 7y ago
  The NFL suspended Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem. That's mild compared hijacking a speech with a gasmask and calling for revolution.
  - bena 7y ago
    Kaepernick was not suspended by the NFL at any point during the anthem protests. Neither was he fined. There is nothing in the NFL rulebook about what you should do during the anthem. Kaepernick suspects that his activism is the reason no team has signed him since he became a free agent. And he may be right. But he was not fired, suspended, or in any way punished officially for what he did.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      Fair enough. I don't really follow football. I still think that he would have been suspended if he put on a black panther beret and called for a revolution.

cabalamat 7y ago

> Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. No, we need to boycott Blizzard.

mapcars 7y ago

>Then we have to boycott Hearthstone You mean Blizzard?

quotemstr 7y ago

Give me a break. When companies censor speech HN likes, it's all about how we have to boycott companies to preserve our society. When it's speech HN doesn't like, it's all about how censorship is actually good and that companies are just "showing people the door" via their freedom of association. People around here need to make up their minds. If you want to object to censorship, great. But if you do, you need to do it as a general principle, and that means tolerating speech you don't like too. You don't get to just lean on freedom of speech selectively. The hypocrisy of supporting corporate censorship against things you like and opposing it against things you don't --- well, it's breathtaking.

clucas 7y ago
> If you want to object to censorship, great. But if you do, you need to do it as a general principle Why? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Blizzard, you should ban people who make racist statements from your tournaments, but you should allow people whose who voice support for pro-democracy protestors to compete. And if you decide not to do that, I won't watch your tourneys or buy your games." Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others, and acting on that preference? Note that no one is saying the government should use its monopoly on force to ban speech - we are talking about private action.
- leshow 7y ago
  > Are you saying that I am a hypocrite for liking the contents of some speech but not others Not OP, but I believe they are talking about objecting to censorship ostensibly because of freedom of speech, and then not objecting to other censorship. If you don't believe in freedom of speech then there is no issue, if you do, you can object to the content of someone's speech, but not their right to express it. That is, if you care about not being a hypocrite.
  - katzenjam 7y ago
    You've created a false dichotomy between an absolute right to free speech and absolute disregard for free speech. There's a third possibility, which is to believe that freedom of speech is an important right, but not an absolute right that trumps all others. One version of this belief says that freedom of speech is useful to society because it allows dissenting views to be resolved through debate rather than violent conflict. It would be reasonable to argue that speech that incites or promotes violent conflict doesn't qualify for protection on these grounds. Another version of this belief says that freedom of speech is just, because society should only intrude on an individual's freedom (e.g. by preventing them from speaking) when the exercise of that freedom threatens another individual's freedom. Again, speech that incites or promotes intruding on other people's freedom, to an extent greater than the intrusion caused by preventing the speech, could reasonably be excluded from protection on these grounds. It's obvious how either of these beliefs about free speech would be compatible with censoring speech that promotes violence or the overthrow of democracy, while at the same time being compatible with objecting to the censorship of other speech. But here's where it gets interesting for me. From the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are threatening the stability of a society that within living memory has seen periods of instability that killed millions. From their point of view, the demonstrators are acting violently and putting millions of lives at risk. I wouldn't personally argue that speaking out in favour of the demonstrators is promoting violence. But the line is less clear than I'd like.

jmcdoa 7y ago

The first thing I did when hearing this news is look into how I could delete my Hearthsone account. This sets such a dangerous precedent if Blizzard gets away with no consequences.

ben_jones 7y ago

From /r/hearthstone >https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201910/acd1e702747963b5e6d65eca7f02b973.JPG https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201910/acd1e702747963b5e6d6... I'm a heartstone player from Taiwan. Just here to share information from another aspect. The picture above is the comment from the official hearthstone account on China social website. (the V means verified) translation:We strongly condemn the player and the casters on what happened in the game last weekend ,and we firmly DISAPPROVE people to state their own political POV in any tournament.The player will be banned from the tournament,and the casters will never be granted the chance to cast any official tournament from now on. Besides,we will firmly PROTECT THE PRIDE OF THE COUNTRY just like what we always do. —— Remember Blizzard is also the company that prominently feature Pride during many Overwatch events on western streams - but didn’t show the same content on Eastern streams. I’m deleting anything I have of Blizzard-Activision not because it’ll hurt their bottom line, but so I can know I’m doing the right thing for this particular situation.

ushypocritesjd 7y ago

Oh please spare me the narrative that America is somehow above this. Look up the history of government censorship of TV, court decisions that limit speech, people getting fired from AMERICAN companies in America for comments on personal social media accounts, how quickly one gets shutdown here even for suggesting that our culture is chasing ephemeral economic models to the point of destroying our environment for the benefit of billionaires and you’ll get scolded about not understanding economics and how smart people have been discussing this for years and the economics keep coming out just so that they benefit the elite. Oh yeah and non-whites in cages. Again. The brain washing to protect American power is just as strong. The gentlemen’s agreement is wrapped in a warmer narrative. You’re being Machiavellian and not having a raw look at the reality.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 7y ago

You may need to attach scopes to "we" and "our society." I assume you're referring to Americans and the United States? Blizzard/Activision is a multinational corporation. Incorporated in the US, but beholden to more cultural norms than just the US ones.

pault 7y ago
Anyone that lives in a democratic country with legally protected civil rights.

kerkeslager 7y ago

Not just Hearthstone, but all Blizzard products.

alimbada 7y ago
They're owned by Activision so all Activision products if you're going to do it properly.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Good point.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

Exactly this. I hope that what people see is that we've been in a cultural war with China for 20+ years. Now that the Chinese market is big enough, Western companies are dropping any standards they have to keep access to the market. Individual companies are not going to fight this war. I don't like Trump as much as anyone, but when Trump adds some tariff on Chinese goods everyone goes batshit insane in the US. The Chinese government almost every day shuts some company or product off from access to the Chinese market for not doing something they say. But until the Hong Kong protests, it seems like no one cared. I hope now that it's LITERALLY, blantantly, and obviously about freedoms and human rights -- it's enough to get people to care. China should lose access to the WTO if it forces any company anywhere (including in China) to censor anything in order to gain or keep access to its market. End of discussion.

reaperducer 7y ago

We need to keep a list of when this happens I would love to see a list like this. Unfortunately, it would contain the names of virtually every airline. But I would still like to see it.

ggregoire 7y ago

There are 1000 reasons to boycott this game. It's one more on the list.

alienallys 7y ago

I have made similar set of argument, but against a religion. That an archaic religious dogma is winning over 21st century progressive principles. I got shut and banned for displaying something-phobia.

dang 7y ago
Not sure if you're talking about here or somewhere Blizzardy, but as far as here goes: you're right—religious flamewar isn't allowed, you've posted such comments before, and we ban accounts that do that. Comments like these, which users correctly flagged, would probably have gotten you banned here if we had seen them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20645480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20645480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20662370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20662370

treis 7y ago

>Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. I think Blizzard has a legitimate "time and place" argument here. They shouldn't regulate competitors speech across the board but I think it's reasonable to mandate that interviews associated with official events focus on Hearthstone and stay away from controversial topics. Of course Blizzard really stepped into it by citing the "brings you into public disrepute" rule. That makes them look like their taking China's side. And this is a full on Streisand effect. The banning brought way more attention (at least in the West) than the initial interview did. Few of us would have even known it happened without hte banning.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
If they had just kicked him out of the tournament, I'd definitely be on that side of things. I don't want a world where all competitions are full of people yelling about hot-button issues. But banning him for a year is so obviously disproportionate, it's hard to see how it could have happened if not for fear of China.
- __s 7y ago
  Also firing the interviewers
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  The tournament was already over, and he had won. They took back his prize money.
throwawaypolicy 7y ago
It more than "looks like" Blizzard is taking China's side. They have outright said that they are in their chinese language statement > We strongly condemn the player and the casters on what happened in the game last weekend ,and we firmly DISAPPROVE people to state their own political POV in any tournament. The player will be banned from the tournament,and the casters will never be granted the chance to cast any official tournament from now on. Besides,we will firmly PROTECT THE PRIDE OF THE COUNTRY just like what we always do. (translation taken from another comment on HN, google finds lots of sources with similar translations, including news articles from reputable papers)

taobility 7y ago

1. Chinese government didn't involve this. It's pure Blizzard's behavior. 2. As you said, you can boycott Hearthstone or Blizzard as the consequence of their actions 3. Meanwhile, Chinese players can also boycott them as well as the consequence of Blizzard's ignorance 4. So at the end, it's Blizzard's decision based on their interest

iamsb 7y ago

Would you oppose firing of James Damore as well? Look I understand that we need to have free expression and free speech. Absolutely. But a business wants to protect itself from negative political reputation. If the gamer was talking about say LGBT rights, and his opinions were considered against the current acceptable position on the matter, and then he was banned, I am sure everyone would have applauded blizzard. Let us not put burden of being politically correct on free market corporations.

bena 7y ago
Yeah, it's a tricky situation. This could be dismissed with the phrase "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" that gets bandied about when certain people get deplatformed. By going after Blizzard for suspending this guy for his speech, you're saying that you care more about the targets than the action. That certain actions are ok as long as we're hurting the right people. So that's what they actually have to defend. They can't hide behind "free speech" now that it's speech they support. They have to make the case as to why this speech should get a pass while other speech should not.
- iamsb 7y ago
  FWIW worth, I have limited knowledge of gaming communities. Most of my concern have been with behavior of twitter when it comes to policing content, specially anti-Islam content which violates blasphemy laws in certain countries like Pakistan. For long time I was of the opinion that twitter is wrong in the way it bans people or removes content which violates these laws. And that twitter should stop operating in those countries instead. Since then I have changed my views about this. I think twitter as a company has every right to operate where ever it pleases and if it means adhering to local laws, so be it.
dontreact 7y ago
Supporting HK protests is very different from falsely claiming that the hiring bar was lowered for women (it said this in the doc, I know enough people at Google who participate in hiring committee to know that it was a false statement).

cryoshon 7y ago

i'm on board with a boycott of blizzard and also activision. we can't continue with appeasement of a totalitarian state bent on controlling the discourse of the world if we want to claim that we are a democracy. unless we're willing to lose money to stay true to our ideals, our ideals aren't real whatsoever.

ryanmercer 7y ago

>Then we have to boycott Hearthstone Honestly never even heard of it so that's pretty easy then.