7 ms·

And no, they aren't. The two things may look superficially similar but Chinese political censorship is much, much older and the process but which it is done has

And no, they aren't. The two things may look superficially similar but Chinese political censorship is much, much older and the process but which it is done hasn't changed in a long time.

bjornsing 7y ago
Ehh... But how old is enforcement of Chinese political censorship in the West?
- monocasa 7y ago
  Blizzard is partially owned by a Chinese company. They're using money, not cancel culture.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Free speech was once valued in USA. In that context this wouldn't have happened. Now that freedom of speech is no longer valued, this sort of thing can happen. Now I state for the record that I know these are the censorious actions of a private firm, not those of the USA federal government. It is of course possible to value speech outside a strict 1A framework. In previous decades, many Americans did so value free speech.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      No it wasn't. The same political sphere that's now complaining about how SJWs are ruining free speech had no problems black balling a large chunk of hollywood in the 50s for their private political speech.
      - quotemstr 7y ago
        The people who regard 1950s Hollywood as an example of malfeasance are the same people who are currently doing the exact same thing to the text industry with the polarity reversed. They have no moral standing whatsoever to complain. If this weren't my industry, the hypocrisy would be hilarious. As long as you get people fired from their jobs for having the wrong opinions about social issues in the US, you have no right to demand that companies not censor what the Chinese censors dislike. Now do you realize the value of free speech as a general principle?
        monocasa 7y ago
        Or... there's a difference between the government enforcing deplatforming, and people voting with their wallets and companies reading the political guide winds turning. Unless you're saying that you have an issue with free association as well.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        Blizzard is exercising its rights as a private company.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Blizzard is owned partially by Tencent, which is owned by the Chinese government.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        Tencent owns 12% of Blizzard, and Tencent is an actual company, not a Chinese government department. Sure, the Chinese government might influence Tencent, but to say that Blizzard's action here is government censorship is so ridiculous that it amounts to a blatant lie. Is your argument so weak that you have to just lie?
        monocasa 7y ago
        12% is more than enough to control a publicly traded company, because speculative shareholders don't typically vote. The Chinese view of ownership is that the CCP ultimately owns everything. For instance there are no land deeds in China, just rental agreements from the party. Tencent, as one of the largest telecommunications companies in China is very much an adjunct of the CCP. Don't accuse someone of lying just because you don't understand the underlying facts.
    - danso 7y ago
      Which era are you referring to? I remember Sinead O'Connor having her career eviscerated after she protested child abuse in the Catholic Church on SNL, so it couldn't be the 1990s. I'm assuming it's not the 2000s (Dixie Chicks, among others). So the 80s? The 70s?
goblin89 7y ago
> Chinese political censorship is much, much older Since 20th century, isn’t it? Or are there any historical sources confirming that political censorship across provinces of China under Qing dynasty was comparable to the one currently under CCP?
- johnday 7y ago
  Yeah, mid-20th century. Admittedly "long time" was pretty vague! My point is that their process is not really being influenced by the so-called "cancel culture" of the last few years.
  - leshow 7y ago
    I don't think the poster was suggesting that 'cancel culture' has affected the chinese political process. I believe they were suggesting that it has created a means for their censorship to be pushed in the West. In so many words; Blizzard can say they don't want to offend the Chinese and use that as their excuse to support this kind of censorship.
XCabbage 7y ago
The only reason Blizzard was legally able to engage in this punishment - which involved stripping the player of his winnings - was that there's a player handbook banning offensive conduct and including this as a penalty. If that provision had not existed, China and Blizzard could not have used it. And the only political faction in the west who demand such codes of conduct are the SJWs. When tomp says that China coopted the machinery of censorship laid by SJWs for its own purposes, he's entirely correct.
- monocasa 7y ago
  No, it's the PR weasel words that have existed in sports contracts from the beginning of broadcast media > 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
  - XCabbage 7y ago
    Citation needed. I don't know the sports world, but I know in my bubble, those "weasel words" are something that only SJWs would approve of. If this sort of thing existed in sports contracts in the pre-SJW era, that is an interesting point that to my mind fractures tomp's narrative... but it seems unlikely to me and so far you've simply asserted it without evidence. I note that the exact phrase "offends a portion or group of the public" has only ever been used in Blizzard's rules as far as I can tell (you can use a date-filtered Google search to confirm; prior to today there are only a handful of results, all Blizzard-related). So at the very least, they didn't lift it verbatim from sports contracts. If there used to be equivalent language in sports contracts a decade ago, I'd like to see it.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      How do you think Kaepernick was benched and then fired, or do you think that the NFL is filled with a bunch of SJWs who also somehow think we should all stand for the flag?
      - 7y ago

And no, they aren't. The two things may look superficially similar but Chinese political censorship is much, much older and the process but which it is done hasn't changed in a long time.

bjornsing 7y ago

Ehh... But how old is enforcement of Chinese political censorship in the West?

monocasa 7y ago
Blizzard is partially owned by a Chinese company. They're using money, not cancel culture.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Free speech was once valued in USA. In that context this wouldn't have happened. Now that freedom of speech is no longer valued, this sort of thing can happen. Now I state for the record that I know these are the censorious actions of a private firm, not those of the USA federal government. It is of course possible to value speech outside a strict 1A framework. In previous decades, many Americans did so value free speech.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    No it wasn't. The same political sphere that's now complaining about how SJWs are ruining free speech had no problems black balling a large chunk of hollywood in the 50s for their private political speech.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      The people who regard 1950s Hollywood as an example of malfeasance are the same people who are currently doing the exact same thing to the text industry with the polarity reversed. They have no moral standing whatsoever to complain. If this weren't my industry, the hypocrisy would be hilarious. As long as you get people fired from their jobs for having the wrong opinions about social issues in the US, you have no right to demand that companies not censor what the Chinese censors dislike. Now do you realize the value of free speech as a general principle?
      - monocasa 7y ago
        Or... there's a difference between the government enforcing deplatforming, and people voting with their wallets and companies reading the political guide winds turning. Unless you're saying that you have an issue with free association as well.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        Blizzard is exercising its rights as a private company.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Blizzard is owned partially by Tencent, which is owned by the Chinese government.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        Tencent owns 12% of Blizzard, and Tencent is an actual company, not a Chinese government department. Sure, the Chinese government might influence Tencent, but to say that Blizzard's action here is government censorship is so ridiculous that it amounts to a blatant lie. Is your argument so weak that you have to just lie?
        monocasa 7y ago
        12% is more than enough to control a publicly traded company, because speculative shareholders don't typically vote. The Chinese view of ownership is that the CCP ultimately owns everything. For instance there are no land deeds in China, just rental agreements from the party. Tencent, as one of the largest telecommunications companies in China is very much an adjunct of the CCP. Don't accuse someone of lying just because you don't understand the underlying facts.
  - danso 7y ago
    Which era are you referring to? I remember Sinead O'Connor having her career eviscerated after she protested child abuse in the Catholic Church on SNL, so it couldn't be the 1990s. I'm assuming it's not the 2000s (Dixie Chicks, among others). So the 80s? The 70s?

goblin89 7y ago

> Chinese political censorship is much, much older Since 20th century, isn’t it? Or are there any historical sources confirming that political censorship across provinces of China under Qing dynasty was comparable to the one currently under CCP?

johnday 7y ago
Yeah, mid-20th century. Admittedly "long time" was pretty vague! My point is that their process is not really being influenced by the so-called "cancel culture" of the last few years.
- leshow 7y ago
  I don't think the poster was suggesting that 'cancel culture' has affected the chinese political process. I believe they were suggesting that it has created a means for their censorship to be pushed in the West. In so many words; Blizzard can say they don't want to offend the Chinese and use that as their excuse to support this kind of censorship.

XCabbage 7y ago

The only reason Blizzard was legally able to engage in this punishment - which involved stripping the player of his winnings - was that there's a player handbook banning offensive conduct and including this as a penalty. If that provision had not existed, China and Blizzard could not have used it. And the only political faction in the west who demand such codes of conduct are the SJWs. When tomp says that China coopted the machinery of censorship laid by SJWs for its own purposes, he's entirely correct.

monocasa 7y ago
No, it's the PR weasel words that have existed in sports contracts from the beginning of broadcast media > 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
- XCabbage 7y ago
  Citation needed. I don't know the sports world, but I know in my bubble, those "weasel words" are something that only SJWs would approve of. If this sort of thing existed in sports contracts in the pre-SJW era, that is an interesting point that to my mind fractures tomp's narrative... but it seems unlikely to me and so far you've simply asserted it without evidence. I note that the exact phrase "offends a portion or group of the public" has only ever been used in Blizzard's rules as far as I can tell (you can use a date-filtered Google search to confirm; prior to today there are only a handful of results, all Blizzard-related). So at the very least, they didn't lift it verbatim from sports contracts. If there used to be equivalent language in sports contracts a decade ago, I'd like to see it.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    How do you think Kaepernick was benched and then fired, or do you think that the NFL is filled with a bunch of SJWs who also somehow think we should all stand for the flag?
    - 7y ago