3 ms·

*protest against a fellow gamer being denied access to a gaming platform because of censorship from an authoritarian government.

by ktln2 7y ago

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

*protest against a fellow gamer being denied access to a gaming platform because of censorship from an authoritarian government.

by 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