3 ms·
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 pr
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoFWIW 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 agoSupporting 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).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- iamsb 7y agoFair enough. I could have used a different example. Though might be worth a thought experiment might be worth considering if people would in fact confirm they treated women differently in hiring process.
- darkarmani 7y ago> Let us not put burden of being politically correct on free market corporations. Isn't that what blizz just did? They were worried about political correctness so they banned someone? > 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. Why are you so sure of this?
- justinclift 7y ago> Let us not put burden of being politically correct on free market corporations. They seem to have picked up the torch themselves on this one.
- iamsb 7y agoThere rule specifies that offensive speech is something that is not allowed. I assumed that same rule will apply to all kinds of offensive speech, including the hong kong related comment. I, for one, dont want people to use platform likes those to spew say homophobic comments. If that means they have deal with all such comments which may be deemed offensive have to be banned, so be it.
- justinclift 7y agoTheir rule specifically says it's at their discretion. And they chose to apply it in this instance.