6 ms·

Is this really the best move? Blizzard made a smart move; the player was going to piss off a large portion of their user base. Freedom of speech works both ways

Is this really the best move? Blizzard made a smart move; the player was going to piss off a large portion of their user base. Freedom of speech works both ways.

ngcc_hk 7y ago
What both ways? Freedom of speech and speak out of belief is core to humanity for quite some times now. Money not an excuse to violate it.
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  So anyone providing a platform owes you "free speech"?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I think in an era where almost all communication happens over a small number of platforms that are controlled by companies, we might have think about that one really hard.
    - flukus 7y ago
      Considering so many are in favor of deplatforming things they don't like we're a long way from this outcome. The last few years of de-platforming have laid the groundwork for the CCP, that's what happens when you don't have principles.
      - philipov 7y ago
        That's what happens when the most important de-facto-public platforms are instead owned by private corporations.
    - rjf72 7y ago
      In the end I think this isn't going to just apply to speech but many facets of modern life that are increasingly controlled by companies instead of governments. For example within 10 days of Wikileaks publishing 'cablegate' back in 2010, Bank of America, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, and Western Union all blocked donations to the site. [1] This effectively destroyed nearly all of their funding. As we've reached an era where a variety of absolutely critical industries are completely or near completely monopolized, it means that things like the first amendment are much less meaningful. If the government wanted to ban some form of speech, all they need to do is to make a call to a handful of companies and, like that, they've banned > 90% of discussion of it. And from the company's perspectives, they can agree to cooperate and expect rich rewards and favorable treatment from the government in the future, or they can refuse to no real gain and end up facing the full fury of an incredibly far-reaching government. Perhaps one of the many reasons that the founding fathers were so obsessed with keeping governments small and relatively weak. This power of coercion is in some ways even more dangerous than any law that might be passed since it can often effect the exact same end while keeping most of the public generally uninformed. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html
  - devilmoon 7y ago
    They certainly don't, but then you have to be ready to face the consequences of silencing people based on your internal politics (i.e. those people not being your customers anymore, or, in this case, wanting you to delete all the personal data they have on you). ActiBlizz can certainly decide that appeasing the chinese market is worth more to them than the western one, but I don't understand why then their western customers can't complain/decide to not do business with them anymore
    - rjf72 7y ago
      That I can explain. The world tide is currently shifting - gaming just happens to be one very clear example of it. China, for instance, literally has more gamers than the US has citizens. [1](2014) The US market is still #1 in terms of revenue, but that's ending imminently - literally perhaps next year. We're currently at $36.87bn compared to China's $36.54bn. [2] And that's with an untapped market of hundreds of millions in China. And their rapid economic growth means all players, new and old, are going to be able and willing to spend more money. Within the next two decades, the US gaming market will likely be a fraction of the Chinese market. This creates an interesting little micro-paradox. Customers in the US claiming they will boycott Blizzard over this situation are precisely why Blizzard is motivated to act in this fashion. Because there would be a mirror situation in China with a vastly larger customer base acting in an equal but opposite fashion. Until people (around the world) can accept individuals behaving in a way they find deplorable, we're only going to end up in a world where the biggest wins. And as the geopolitical status quo changes, that's no longer simply synonymous with USA or even the west in general. This is one of the many reasons I think the trend of 'free speech is only the government' is so incredibly myopic. People don't consider that the views they support will inevitably also come under fire from the powers that be - and they'll rapidly find themselves facing silencing and censorship with no recourse. Free speech is a value, not an amendment. Dismissing this because it's convenient is something that will only come back to haunt people as the tides shift, which they inevitably do. We should base our values on a system of ethos, not whichever chain of often contradictory positions we think will work as a means to achieve whatever ends we think we're going to get. [1] - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-number-of-chinese-gamers-surpasses-the-number-of-american-citizens/1100-6419166/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-number-of-chinese-game... [2] - https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-10-countries-by-game-revenues/ https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-10-countries-by-gam...
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Brian Kibler put it very well: http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/ http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/ > I do think that Blizzard was correct in issuing him a penalty for his actions. They do not want to set the precedent for their official broadcasts being used as political tools. The players agreed to particular rules for behavior, and he violated those rules. [..] > All that having been said, there are additional factors at play here. The punishment meted out to Blitzchung is incredibly harsh. I could understand a fine, or even a short suspension from competitive play, but removal from Grandmasters, clawing back the prizes he already earned, and banning him for a full year seems completely overboard to an extent that feels completely unwarranted and unfair. > I won’t pretend to understand either the intricacies of the geopolitical situation in China and Hong Kong or the full extent of Blizzard’s business interests there, but to me this penalty feels like it is deeply rooted in both. The heavy-handedness of it feels like someone insisted that Blizzard make an example of Blitzchung, not only to discourage others from similar acts in the future but also to appease those upset by the outburst itself. > That kind of appeasement is simply not something I can in good conscience be associated with. When I learned about the ruling, I reached out to Blizzard and informed them that I no longer feel comfortable casting the Grandmasters finals at BlizzCon. I will not be a smiling face on camera that tacitly endorses this decision. Unless something changes, I will have no involvement in Grandmasters moving forward. What isn't even mentioned there is that the two casters apparently got fired, too. They didn't know he was going to say that, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they laughed supportingly, or didn't show enough disapproval, I haven't seen it. But the punishment was extremely heavy-handed and disproportionate at any rate, no matter how you look at it.
    - rjf72 7y ago
      Here is the video [1] with complete context. Unfortunately I've yet to find a complete translated transcript. But from what I've read (from potentially unreliable sources) the casters said 'Go ahead and say those 8 words and we'll wrap up here. There's nothing else to talk about. Let's lower our heads.' He then said 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time' while wearing a gas mask. Guessing that's 8 words in Mandarin. They then laugh and clap. This is actually the thing that most frustrates me about these protests and issue in general. Finding complete, in context, recordings of the critical events is so incredibly difficult. This makes no sense since we are now in an era where everything is on camera from 500 different angles. But it is what it is. And of course providing in context video gets downvoted, because it makes the issues look less black and white. But that to me is the clearest example of idiocracy. We should not seek to create Hollywood villains and heroes in how things are presented. People should make judgments based on reality which, almost invariably, is more of a million shades of gray rather than good vs evil, right vs wrong. [1] - https://youtu.be/KyxO0Ea1_kM?t=2152 https://youtu.be/KyxO0Ea1_kM?t=2152
  - paperskull 7y ago
    No but they are not entitled to customers and they have the right to express their dissatisfaction. Just as China can threaten Blizzard with no business unless they kowtow, customers from other countries can threaten Blizzard with no business for giving in to China's demands.
corodra 7y ago
A foreign country is imposing companies to self-censorship according to their thoughts. It's also not the first time, by a long shot. Fun part Blizzard "has" a motto, "Every voice matters".
- vegan_zaddy 7y ago
  "Self-censorship" happens every day. I'm allowed to say whatever I want but I'm not allowed to force someone to give me a platform for my speech. This is not a violation of free speech in any way.
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    Must feel good getting paid by the PRC huh
Craighead 7y ago
Read differently your comment is essentially "We must tolerate intolerance" No, we most certainly do not.
- vegan_zaddy 7y ago
  I agree with you, we should not tolerate intolerance. Why should Blizzard have to tolerate someone else's views? They are perfectly within their right to deny someone an association or a platform whose views that they do not agree with.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    China is within its rights to demand Blizzard censor content. US user/viewers are within their rights to criticize and boycott them. Blizzard is within its right to change their policy or ignore the criticism.
    - vegan_zaddy 7y ago
      Are they demanding that Blizzard "censor content" or is Blizzard trying to stray away from politics? I don't think there is anything wrong with Blizzard stepping in to say "no you can't use our platform, our company to promote this message" a message that's REALLY divisive amongst their user base.
      - s1artibartfast 7y ago
        >Are they demanding that Blizzard "censor content" or is Blizzard trying to stray away from politics? I expect there is some of both. Fear of government intervention and fear of public backlash in China. I agree it is very understandable that blizzard would want to be apolitical and discourage divisive speech. The question is what to do once the speech has occured, because now blizzard is in the hot seat where their response can be REALLY divisive. I personally think the response was overly putative, especially the firing of the hapless hosts. Especially so, given that 90% of their business is outside of asia, and only a fraction of the remainder is in China. The question remains where customers will accept blizzard drawing the line. They would be equally within their legal rights to restrict streamers, game chat, or out of game speech.
quotz 7y ago
Another pro-CCP user that has just created his account... @dang save us...
serf 7y ago
>Is this really the best move? No. The best form of protest against their actions would be for Blizzards' customers to remove their profit from them. Question : is 'freedom of speech' an action point objective somewhere? It's rare that I hear it used defensively so often, and the past few days have been non-stop "Oh, you like freedom of speech? then you must like (X bad thing it allows for/causes.). Is this some kind of coordinated strategy? It feels like one.
z3c0 7y ago
Have you created an account solely for the purpose of defending the CCP? I ask because your account was created today, and the only comments you've made are pro-CCP. e: It appears someone has flagged my comment. While it wasn't directly responding to the statement by OP, I can't help but think that this may have been done in bad faith.
Xelbair 7y ago
Yes, they aren't legally obliged to provide a platform that allows freedom of speech. Yet they also have to expect a backlash if they don't provide it,as freedom of speech is integral part of our culture. People expect that, and any defence of type 'but by law we aren't required to provide that!' will just piss their western customers off. EDIT: not to mention that in this case the punishment was severe. They could try to stay apolitical by just giving him a slap on the wrist and a temporary ban on tournaments. It would both send a message and work as a deterrent. Strangely enough Activision-Blizzard soon after that announced their Call of Duty Mobile - designed by Chinese company team responsible for Diablo Immortal.. which was subsidized by CCP. It was stone cold calculation of: profit loss from hearthstone backlash vs earnings from Chinese mobile market

Is this really the best move? Blizzard made a smart move; the player was going to piss off a large portion of their user base. Freedom of speech works both ways.

ngcc_hk 7y ago

What both ways? Freedom of speech and speak out of belief is core to humanity for quite some times now. Money not an excuse to violate it.

ShorsHammer 7y ago
So anyone providing a platform owes you "free speech"?
- adrianN 7y ago
  I think in an era where almost all communication happens over a small number of platforms that are controlled by companies, we might have think about that one really hard.
  - flukus 7y ago
    Considering so many are in favor of deplatforming things they don't like we're a long way from this outcome. The last few years of de-platforming have laid the groundwork for the CCP, that's what happens when you don't have principles.
    - philipov 7y ago
      That's what happens when the most important de-facto-public platforms are instead owned by private corporations.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    In the end I think this isn't going to just apply to speech but many facets of modern life that are increasingly controlled by companies instead of governments. For example within 10 days of Wikileaks publishing 'cablegate' back in 2010, Bank of America, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, and Western Union all blocked donations to the site. [1] This effectively destroyed nearly all of their funding. As we've reached an era where a variety of absolutely critical industries are completely or near completely monopolized, it means that things like the first amendment are much less meaningful. If the government wanted to ban some form of speech, all they need to do is to make a call to a handful of companies and, like that, they've banned > 90% of discussion of it. And from the company's perspectives, they can agree to cooperate and expect rich rewards and favorable treatment from the government in the future, or they can refuse to no real gain and end up facing the full fury of an incredibly far-reaching government. Perhaps one of the many reasons that the founding fathers were so obsessed with keeping governments small and relatively weak. This power of coercion is in some ways even more dangerous than any law that might be passed since it can often effect the exact same end while keeping most of the public generally uninformed. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html
- devilmoon 7y ago
  They certainly don't, but then you have to be ready to face the consequences of silencing people based on your internal politics (i.e. those people not being your customers anymore, or, in this case, wanting you to delete all the personal data they have on you). ActiBlizz can certainly decide that appeasing the chinese market is worth more to them than the western one, but I don't understand why then their western customers can't complain/decide to not do business with them anymore
  - rjf72 7y ago
    That I can explain. The world tide is currently shifting - gaming just happens to be one very clear example of it. China, for instance, literally has more gamers than the US has citizens. [1](2014) The US market is still #1 in terms of revenue, but that's ending imminently - literally perhaps next year. We're currently at $36.87bn compared to China's $36.54bn. [2] And that's with an untapped market of hundreds of millions in China. And their rapid economic growth means all players, new and old, are going to be able and willing to spend more money. Within the next two decades, the US gaming market will likely be a fraction of the Chinese market. This creates an interesting little micro-paradox. Customers in the US claiming they will boycott Blizzard over this situation are precisely why Blizzard is motivated to act in this fashion. Because there would be a mirror situation in China with a vastly larger customer base acting in an equal but opposite fashion. Until people (around the world) can accept individuals behaving in a way they find deplorable, we're only going to end up in a world where the biggest wins. And as the geopolitical status quo changes, that's no longer simply synonymous with USA or even the west in general. This is one of the many reasons I think the trend of 'free speech is only the government' is so incredibly myopic. People don't consider that the views they support will inevitably also come under fire from the powers that be - and they'll rapidly find themselves facing silencing and censorship with no recourse. Free speech is a value, not an amendment. Dismissing this because it's convenient is something that will only come back to haunt people as the tides shift, which they inevitably do. We should base our values on a system of ethos, not whichever chain of often contradictory positions we think will work as a means to achieve whatever ends we think we're going to get. [1] - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-number-of-chinese-gamers-surpasses-the-number-of-american-citizens/1100-6419166/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-number-of-chinese-game... [2] - https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-10-countries-by-game-revenues/ https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-10-countries-by-gam...
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  Brian Kibler put it very well: http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/ http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/ > I do think that Blizzard was correct in issuing him a penalty for his actions. They do not want to set the precedent for their official broadcasts being used as political tools. The players agreed to particular rules for behavior, and he violated those rules. [..] > All that having been said, there are additional factors at play here. The punishment meted out to Blitzchung is incredibly harsh. I could understand a fine, or even a short suspension from competitive play, but removal from Grandmasters, clawing back the prizes he already earned, and banning him for a full year seems completely overboard to an extent that feels completely unwarranted and unfair. > I won’t pretend to understand either the intricacies of the geopolitical situation in China and Hong Kong or the full extent of Blizzard’s business interests there, but to me this penalty feels like it is deeply rooted in both. The heavy-handedness of it feels like someone insisted that Blizzard make an example of Blitzchung, not only to discourage others from similar acts in the future but also to appease those upset by the outburst itself. > That kind of appeasement is simply not something I can in good conscience be associated with. When I learned about the ruling, I reached out to Blizzard and informed them that I no longer feel comfortable casting the Grandmasters finals at BlizzCon. I will not be a smiling face on camera that tacitly endorses this decision. Unless something changes, I will have no involvement in Grandmasters moving forward. What isn't even mentioned there is that the two casters apparently got fired, too. They didn't know he was going to say that, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they laughed supportingly, or didn't show enough disapproval, I haven't seen it. But the punishment was extremely heavy-handed and disproportionate at any rate, no matter how you look at it.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    Here is the video [1] with complete context. Unfortunately I've yet to find a complete translated transcript. But from what I've read (from potentially unreliable sources) the casters said 'Go ahead and say those 8 words and we'll wrap up here. There's nothing else to talk about. Let's lower our heads.' He then said 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time' while wearing a gas mask. Guessing that's 8 words in Mandarin. They then laugh and clap. This is actually the thing that most frustrates me about these protests and issue in general. Finding complete, in context, recordings of the critical events is so incredibly difficult. This makes no sense since we are now in an era where everything is on camera from 500 different angles. But it is what it is. And of course providing in context video gets downvoted, because it makes the issues look less black and white. But that to me is the clearest example of idiocracy. We should not seek to create Hollywood villains and heroes in how things are presented. People should make judgments based on reality which, almost invariably, is more of a million shades of gray rather than good vs evil, right vs wrong. [1] - https://youtu.be/KyxO0Ea1_kM?t=2152 https://youtu.be/KyxO0Ea1_kM?t=2152
- paperskull 7y ago
  No but they are not entitled to customers and they have the right to express their dissatisfaction. Just as China can threaten Blizzard with no business unless they kowtow, customers from other countries can threaten Blizzard with no business for giving in to China's demands.

corodra 7y ago

A foreign country is imposing companies to self-censorship according to their thoughts. It's also not the first time, by a long shot. Fun part Blizzard "has" a motto, "Every voice matters".

vegan_zaddy 7y ago
"Self-censorship" happens every day. I'm allowed to say whatever I want but I'm not allowed to force someone to give me a platform for my speech. This is not a violation of free speech in any way.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  Must feel good getting paid by the PRC huh

Craighead 7y ago

Read differently your comment is essentially "We must tolerate intolerance" No, we most certainly do not.

vegan_zaddy 7y ago
I agree with you, we should not tolerate intolerance. Why should Blizzard have to tolerate someone else's views? They are perfectly within their right to deny someone an association or a platform whose views that they do not agree with.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  China is within its rights to demand Blizzard censor content. US user/viewers are within their rights to criticize and boycott them. Blizzard is within its right to change their policy or ignore the criticism.
  - vegan_zaddy 7y ago
    Are they demanding that Blizzard "censor content" or is Blizzard trying to stray away from politics? I don't think there is anything wrong with Blizzard stepping in to say "no you can't use our platform, our company to promote this message" a message that's REALLY divisive amongst their user base.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      >Are they demanding that Blizzard "censor content" or is Blizzard trying to stray away from politics? I expect there is some of both. Fear of government intervention and fear of public backlash in China. I agree it is very understandable that blizzard would want to be apolitical and discourage divisive speech. The question is what to do once the speech has occured, because now blizzard is in the hot seat where their response can be REALLY divisive. I personally think the response was overly putative, especially the firing of the hapless hosts. Especially so, given that 90% of their business is outside of asia, and only a fraction of the remainder is in China. The question remains where customers will accept blizzard drawing the line. They would be equally within their legal rights to restrict streamers, game chat, or out of game speech.

quotz 7y ago

Another pro-CCP user that has just created his account... @dang save us...

serf 7y ago

>Is this really the best move? No. The best form of protest against their actions would be for Blizzards' customers to remove their profit from them. Question : is 'freedom of speech' an action point objective somewhere? It's rare that I hear it used defensively so often, and the past few days have been non-stop "Oh, you like freedom of speech? then you must like (X bad thing it allows for/causes.). Is this some kind of coordinated strategy? It feels like one.

z3c0 7y ago

Have you created an account solely for the purpose of defending the CCP? I ask because your account was created today, and the only comments you've made are pro-CCP. e: It appears someone has flagged my comment. While it wasn't directly responding to the statement by OP, I can't help but think that this may have been done in bad faith.

Xelbair 7y ago

Yes, they aren't legally obliged to provide a platform that allows freedom of speech. Yet they also have to expect a backlash if they don't provide it,as freedom of speech is integral part of our culture. People expect that, and any defence of type 'but by law we aren't required to provide that!' will just piss their western customers off. EDIT: not to mention that in this case the punishment was severe. They could try to stay apolitical by just giving him a slap on the wrist and a temporary ban on tournaments. It would both send a message and work as a deterrent. Strangely enough Activision-Blizzard soon after that announced their Call of Duty Mobile - designed by Chinese company team responsible for Diablo Immortal.. which was subsidized by CCP. It was stone cold calculation of: profit loss from hearthstone backlash vs earnings from Chinese mobile market