10 ms·

Well, they aren't. You might notice the part where the people who offended china are lauded and the cowardly companies are being lambasted for failing to stand

• deogeo 7y ago
  ...and therefore the companies didn't try to censor? You've made a very convincing argument - if those that are censored are afterwards lauded, then the lauding means they're not being censored. But if they're condemned, that means it's people refusing to listen - again not censorship. And if they're neither lauded nor condemned, because no-one heard of them because the censorship was successful, well then we don't even talk about it. No matter what happens, it's not censorship!
  • iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
    I didn't say it wasn't censorship, I said it's not a free speech issue and I stand by that. Blizzard is free to associate with who they want. They want to associate with China. What if instead of china he started talking about how white people need to start driving the lesser races out? Should blizzard still be required to associate with him? Is anything less than business as normal too much of an impingement on his rights? What happened to him is just business. If you don't like it (I don't), then blame capitalism (I do).