4 ms·

About time gamers did something useful.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
Like protest against a fellow gamer being denied access to a gaming platform? Given your premise it's hard to see the logic.
- ktln2 7y ago
  *protest against a fellow gamer being denied access to a gaming platform because of censorship from an authoritarian government.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    The gamer didn't get censored by the Chinese government. A private company banned him because they decided they would rather do business with China than not do business with China. That's a huge difference. China is free to make their own rules for when they do business with foreigners. Just like how the US enforces sanctions. Germany is free to business with, say, Iran, but if they do that then the USA is going to not do any business with Germany. So Germany has to decide whether they want to do business with the USA or Iran more. Is that censorship too?
    - ggggtez 7y ago
      Blizzard is partially owned by TenCent. So actually it is the Chinese government.
      - bcrosby95 7y ago
        Only 5% though.
    - foota 7y ago
      I wouldn't say it's censorship per se, since in that case the US isn't trying to suppress the speech of Germany, though it is similar. It also involves two countries whereas in this case we're talking between a company and a country. I think the power balance is different between the two. Particularly with a relatively large economy like Germany. Embargoing Germany would affect the US materially, whereas ceasing business with a company will not affect a country unless it is extremely large and strategically important. A better theoretical might be if say the US were to force a company to choose between speech supporting a political dissident (maybe Snowden?) and doing business with the US. Not too hard to imagine really, and it would be censorship.
    - meowface 7y ago
      Yes, it's censorship. It's just censorship-by-proxy rather than censorship originating from their own personal stance. The Chinese government may be the root cause, but everyone involved is still complicit in the censorship, even of they're slightly less to blame. No one is forcing them to work with China, regardless of their economic best interests. (Stockholders demanding they make the most revenue possible isn't a valid defense.)
      - cookie_monsta 7y ago
        > Stockholders demanding they make the most revenue possible isn't a valid defense Valid in which sense? And is the logical extension of your position not a complete ban on trade with China?
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    *because of the platform's fears of the economic repercussions of displeasing an authoritarian government
- ggggtez 7y ago
  He essentially lost his job for political speech. See the NBA story from today where the NBA refused to censor a player for supporting HK. See why this isn't just about "a gamer"?
  - flukus 7y ago
    Political speech they agree with. We crossed these sorts of lines long ago but it was political speech they disagreed with then, so it's only bad now. If everyone had been more inclined to defend peoples right to views they don't agree with then we wouldn't be here now. Plenty here were fine with Stallman being fired over his personal views, now they're seeing the other side.
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      Is justifying child molestation a political act now?
    - etchalon 7y ago
      Your argument is people should be just as upset by things which don't upset them as they are by things which do upset them. It's a weird argument.
      - flukus 7y ago
        It's not that they should be just as upset, it's that they don't have any sort of principled stance and are in the cheer squad when the same thing is happening to the other side. They cheer people losing jobs because they disagree with them and get upset that the same thing happens to people they agree with, at least at the group level. Should you be able to lose your job, be cutoff from a private service, be banned from a project because of your public opinions? It's a yes/no question and modern society appears to be converging on yes. This is a consequence of that decision. An easy to see consequence that many of us warned about but got drowned out of the conversation being called racists, christian fundamentalist, pedophile apologists and everything else when we speak for their rights. So congratulations to the people that cheered Stallmans firing, various de-platforming techniques, codes of conduct, etc, you've normalized this and given the CCP all the weapons they need to control speech in the west.
- mlnj 7y ago
  The protest is not just for denying access to a fellow gamer, but the company's stance supporting an authoritarian government suppressing human rights and censoring free information. People have a right to boycott an organization when their money is used for something like this.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Did they support an authoritarian government, or do they simply prohibit their tournaments from being used for activism?
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    > People have a right to boycott an organization when their money is used for something like this. Of course they do, but there is no mention of a boycott in the article.
    - mcphage 7y ago
      > Of course they do, but there is no mention of a boycott in the article. This is not the only article on this topic, nor the only thread of conversation about this.

Like protest against a fellow gamer being denied access to a gaming platform? Given your premise it's hard to see the logic.

ktln2 7y ago
*protest against a fellow gamer being denied access to a gaming platform because of censorship from an authoritarian government.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  The gamer didn't get censored by the Chinese government. A private company banned him because they decided they would rather do business with China than not do business with China. That's a huge difference. China is free to make their own rules for when they do business with foreigners. Just like how the US enforces sanctions. Germany is free to business with, say, Iran, but if they do that then the USA is going to not do any business with Germany. So Germany has to decide whether they want to do business with the USA or Iran more. Is that censorship too?
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    Blizzard is partially owned by TenCent. So actually it is the Chinese government.
    - bcrosby95 7y ago
      Only 5% though.
  - foota 7y ago
    I wouldn't say it's censorship per se, since in that case the US isn't trying to suppress the speech of Germany, though it is similar. It also involves two countries whereas in this case we're talking between a company and a country. I think the power balance is different between the two. Particularly with a relatively large economy like Germany. Embargoing Germany would affect the US materially, whereas ceasing business with a company will not affect a country unless it is extremely large and strategically important. A better theoretical might be if say the US were to force a company to choose between speech supporting a political dissident (maybe Snowden?) and doing business with the US. Not too hard to imagine really, and it would be censorship.
  - meowface 7y ago
    Yes, it's censorship. It's just censorship-by-proxy rather than censorship originating from their own personal stance. The Chinese government may be the root cause, but everyone involved is still complicit in the censorship, even of they're slightly less to blame. No one is forcing them to work with China, regardless of their economic best interests. (Stockholders demanding they make the most revenue possible isn't a valid defense.)
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      > Stockholders demanding they make the most revenue possible isn't a valid defense Valid in which sense? And is the logical extension of your position not a complete ban on trade with China?
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  *because of the platform's fears of the economic repercussions of displeasing an authoritarian government
ggggtez 7y ago
He essentially lost his job for political speech. See the NBA story from today where the NBA refused to censor a player for supporting HK. See why this isn't just about "a gamer"?
- flukus 7y ago
  Political speech they agree with. We crossed these sorts of lines long ago but it was political speech they disagreed with then, so it's only bad now. If everyone had been more inclined to defend peoples right to views they don't agree with then we wouldn't be here now. Plenty here were fine with Stallman being fired over his personal views, now they're seeing the other side.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    Is justifying child molestation a political act now?
  - etchalon 7y ago
    Your argument is people should be just as upset by things which don't upset them as they are by things which do upset them. It's a weird argument.
    - flukus 7y ago
      It's not that they should be just as upset, it's that they don't have any sort of principled stance and are in the cheer squad when the same thing is happening to the other side. They cheer people losing jobs because they disagree with them and get upset that the same thing happens to people they agree with, at least at the group level. Should you be able to lose your job, be cutoff from a private service, be banned from a project because of your public opinions? It's a yes/no question and modern society appears to be converging on yes. This is a consequence of that decision. An easy to see consequence that many of us warned about but got drowned out of the conversation being called racists, christian fundamentalist, pedophile apologists and everything else when we speak for their rights. So congratulations to the people that cheered Stallmans firing, various de-platforming techniques, codes of conduct, etc, you've normalized this and given the CCP all the weapons they need to control speech in the west.
mlnj 7y ago
The protest is not just for denying access to a fellow gamer, but the company's stance supporting an authoritarian government suppressing human rights and censoring free information. People have a right to boycott an organization when their money is used for something like this.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Did they support an authoritarian government, or do they simply prohibit their tournaments from being used for activism?
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  > People have a right to boycott an organization when their money is used for something like this. Of course they do, but there is no mention of a boycott in the article.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > Of course they do, but there is no mention of a boycott in the article. This is not the only article on this topic, nor the only thread of conversation about this.