6 ms·

How do you respond? A bit too late for that. Traditionally, reasonable companies preempted this kind of stuff by creating a clear separation between professiona

How do you respond? A bit too late for that. Traditionally, reasonable companies preempted this kind of stuff by creating a clear separation between professional and personal matters, and not mixing the two. But hey, these days many people want companies to stick their nose into everyone's business, police "bad speech", create comfortable "spaces", enforce conduct and so on. Well, you reap what you sow. Any mechanism that is created to do all this "activism" will inevitably be subverted by something like CPC to enforce their interests upon everyone else.

falcolas 7y ago
Perhaps not cleanly stated, but true. Blizzard quite explicitly catered to the LGBTQ+ demographic recently via an Overwatch promotion, a move that can easily be construed as political speech (and which was voluntarily censored by Blizzard in Russia and China). They stuck their feet into this arena, and are now realizing that making political statement can affect their revenue in both directions.
- dpratt 7y ago
  The fact that they voluntarily censored it in Russia and China is essentially definitive proof that they don’t actually care about the issue, but rather think it will gain them more money in the US. If they cared, they would have required that China and Russia be the bad guy and force them, but they’d clearly prefer to take the path of least resistance.
  - Kaveren 7y ago
    They can care about the issue and still be greedy and care about money way more. The issue with letting governments "force" things like that is that they might just ban the game entirely and forever.
  - JansjoFromIkea 7y ago
    I think it's probably a bit more nuanced than that... Much like how tons of companies seem to jump on the LGBT logo type stuff, I suspect this kind of pro-LGBT sentiment is driven by people within the company who genuinely mean it and then it's up to the company to: (a) embrace their suggestions in the name of boosting employee morale and involvement (b) say no to sidestep potential political implications and potentially unsettle workplace morale The company fundamentally does not give a flying f*ck about the issue at hand, but it manages to work its way up along a chain of individuals who either do believe in the motives or are unwilling to be the one to say no until it actually gets put out officially. If there ever was a "there's big money in this stuff" thought, I seriously doubt it was a significant motivator as the person thinking that cynically would doubtless be aware of international considerations too. I'm not trying to defend companies here at all, to be clear. I struggle to believe any company that isn't taking extremely proactive steps at the risk of their bottom line don't actually care about anything on an ethical level.
  - prirun 7y ago
    See the documentary "The Corporation". The basic premise of this doc is that corporations are sociopaths / psychopaths. Corporations do not "care" about anything - only people can do that. Companies do not have ethics, morals, etc. Only individual people have those. The film also talks about how any group of people tend to lose their humanity because in any group, it is easy to fall back on "someone else made the decision", "it's someone else's problem", "I didn't have the final say-so on this", etc. IMO we too often have given companies attributes and rights of individuals that they don't deserve because they don't behave like individuals, and are incapable of having things like morals.
- mintplant 7y ago
  So, what, as an LGBTQ+ person, I'm not allowed to be represented in media? Because my existence is "political"?
  - belltaco 7y ago
    That's what a bunch of people have been saying in Reddit comments about Blizzard allowing "political speech" for acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ people. https://www.reddit.com/r/Blizzard/comments/dgodfz/we_wont_allow_any_talk_of_social_justice_or/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Blizzard/comments/dgodfz/we_wont_al...
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Sadly in many places it still is political isn't it? Like Russia, China, Utah... Since homophobic bigots run the places and think it's ok to oppress things they aren't comfortable with...
    - knicholes 7y ago
      You name two countries and then an obscure state. What's the deal with Utah?
      - 1propionyl 7y ago
        Well, it might be that it is effectively a theocracy because a church with a strongly enforced normative code of "morality" controls access to political levers (practically requiring membership for anyone who wants to effect political change of any kind), and that church exerts a 10-15% tax on its members? Which it then uses (in parallel to the "official" state government) to invest in projects and consolidate its own economic and political power? Just spitballing though. It's certainly not as bad as Russia or China, but it's not an entirely unfounded inclusion on that list.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        The LDS church (Mormons) are much more accepting of LGBTQ+ members than other Christian sects from what I’ve seen. And that “tax” is called a tithe. And it’s optional.
- darklajid 7y ago
  I don't understand the line of reasoning here. If Blizzard wants to (appear to, if we doubt their sincerity) support a political cause, that's a decision by the company. I agree that they should expect a potential fallout for that. But how is that related to Blizzard sponsoring (paying for casters, production and using their branding) content where random individuals make their own political statements (imho: presented in questionable ways)? Is "not supporting individuals to hijack your platform for their own agenda" now immediately the same as "explicitly aligning yourself with the opposite political position"? That feels like the "If you're against censorship you support child porn" argument? "If you don't want any random political statements then you are explicitly against the specific political point that a random guy chanted" does seem weird.
  - alex_c 7y ago
    Context is important. Context #1: there has been a years-long trend for Western entertainment media (movies, games) to cater to the Chinese market. This ranges from voluntary censorship that seems odd in the West (no skeletons?) to more sensitive topics like sexuality. Specifically, last year Blizzard disappointed fans by announcing a mobile Diablo game that no one really asked for and that many felt is squarely aimed at the Chinese market. Context #2: the trade war and Hong Kong protests have brought a lot of attention to China in general. The Hong Kong protests seem to be particularly popular with younger people online. Context #3: Blizzard's reaction seemed particularly swift and heavy-handed, giving the impression that it was more about not offending China than about discouraging political statements on streams. Blizzard's announcement on Chinese social media supported this impression, and their delayed and lukewarm non-apology statement in the US didn't do much to change that perception. Further, Blizzard's support for LGBTQ suggests that it's not just about political statements on the stream, but the content of the statements is important. Put another way: would Blizzard's response be the same if the unauthorized statement was pro-LGBTQ rather than pro-HK? There is no way to know for sure, but if the answer is "no" that means Blizzard is indirectly picking sides. Combine all that and Blizzard put themselves in an impossible situation with no good way forward. My personal opinion: it probably was about China, it probably was a decision made locally further down the corporate ladder, and US HQ is now stuck with something they can't fix.
Craighead 7y ago
Equating so called cancel culture with China political speech policing are truly very different things.
Kaveren 7y ago
this is a really illogical take that sounds extremely biased. I do not believe for a second that if American companies did not do anything you claim they do, that would somehow make Blizzard not be threatened by the Chinese government in this situation. like I have no clue how you can relate these two. we aren't just talking about public backlash, we are talking about the threat that a government can harm your operations in their country for speech. this is so different.

falcolas 7y ago

Perhaps not cleanly stated, but true. Blizzard quite explicitly catered to the LGBTQ+ demographic recently via an Overwatch promotion, a move that can easily be construed as political speech (and which was voluntarily censored by Blizzard in Russia and China). They stuck their feet into this arena, and are now realizing that making political statement can affect their revenue in both directions.

dpratt 7y ago
The fact that they voluntarily censored it in Russia and China is essentially definitive proof that they don’t actually care about the issue, but rather think it will gain them more money in the US. If they cared, they would have required that China and Russia be the bad guy and force them, but they’d clearly prefer to take the path of least resistance.
- Kaveren 7y ago
  They can care about the issue and still be greedy and care about money way more. The issue with letting governments "force" things like that is that they might just ban the game entirely and forever.
- JansjoFromIkea 7y ago
  I think it's probably a bit more nuanced than that... Much like how tons of companies seem to jump on the LGBT logo type stuff, I suspect this kind of pro-LGBT sentiment is driven by people within the company who genuinely mean it and then it's up to the company to: (a) embrace their suggestions in the name of boosting employee morale and involvement (b) say no to sidestep potential political implications and potentially unsettle workplace morale The company fundamentally does not give a flying f*ck about the issue at hand, but it manages to work its way up along a chain of individuals who either do believe in the motives or are unwilling to be the one to say no until it actually gets put out officially. If there ever was a "there's big money in this stuff" thought, I seriously doubt it was a significant motivator as the person thinking that cynically would doubtless be aware of international considerations too. I'm not trying to defend companies here at all, to be clear. I struggle to believe any company that isn't taking extremely proactive steps at the risk of their bottom line don't actually care about anything on an ethical level.
- prirun 7y ago
  See the documentary "The Corporation". The basic premise of this doc is that corporations are sociopaths / psychopaths. Corporations do not "care" about anything - only people can do that. Companies do not have ethics, morals, etc. Only individual people have those. The film also talks about how any group of people tend to lose their humanity because in any group, it is easy to fall back on "someone else made the decision", "it's someone else's problem", "I didn't have the final say-so on this", etc. IMO we too often have given companies attributes and rights of individuals that they don't deserve because they don't behave like individuals, and are incapable of having things like morals.
mintplant 7y ago
So, what, as an LGBTQ+ person, I'm not allowed to be represented in media? Because my existence is "political"?
- belltaco 7y ago
  That's what a bunch of people have been saying in Reddit comments about Blizzard allowing "political speech" for acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ people. https://www.reddit.com/r/Blizzard/comments/dgodfz/we_wont_allow_any_talk_of_social_justice_or/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Blizzard/comments/dgodfz/we_wont_al...
- netsharc 7y ago
  Sadly in many places it still is political isn't it? Like Russia, China, Utah... Since homophobic bigots run the places and think it's ok to oppress things they aren't comfortable with...
  - knicholes 7y ago
    You name two countries and then an obscure state. What's the deal with Utah?
    - 1propionyl 7y ago
      Well, it might be that it is effectively a theocracy because a church with a strongly enforced normative code of "morality" controls access to political levers (practically requiring membership for anyone who wants to effect political change of any kind), and that church exerts a 10-15% tax on its members? Which it then uses (in parallel to the "official" state government) to invest in projects and consolidate its own economic and political power? Just spitballing though. It's certainly not as bad as Russia or China, but it's not an entirely unfounded inclusion on that list.
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        The LDS church (Mormons) are much more accepting of LGBTQ+ members than other Christian sects from what I’ve seen. And that “tax” is called a tithe. And it’s optional.
darklajid 7y ago
I don't understand the line of reasoning here. If Blizzard wants to (appear to, if we doubt their sincerity) support a political cause, that's a decision by the company. I agree that they should expect a potential fallout for that. But how is that related to Blizzard sponsoring (paying for casters, production and using their branding) content where random individuals make their own political statements (imho: presented in questionable ways)? Is "not supporting individuals to hijack your platform for their own agenda" now immediately the same as "explicitly aligning yourself with the opposite political position"? That feels like the "If you're against censorship you support child porn" argument? "If you don't want any random political statements then you are explicitly against the specific political point that a random guy chanted" does seem weird.
- alex_c 7y ago
  Context is important. Context #1: there has been a years-long trend for Western entertainment media (movies, games) to cater to the Chinese market. This ranges from voluntary censorship that seems odd in the West (no skeletons?) to more sensitive topics like sexuality. Specifically, last year Blizzard disappointed fans by announcing a mobile Diablo game that no one really asked for and that many felt is squarely aimed at the Chinese market. Context #2: the trade war and Hong Kong protests have brought a lot of attention to China in general. The Hong Kong protests seem to be particularly popular with younger people online. Context #3: Blizzard's reaction seemed particularly swift and heavy-handed, giving the impression that it was more about not offending China than about discouraging political statements on streams. Blizzard's announcement on Chinese social media supported this impression, and their delayed and lukewarm non-apology statement in the US didn't do much to change that perception. Further, Blizzard's support for LGBTQ suggests that it's not just about political statements on the stream, but the content of the statements is important. Put another way: would Blizzard's response be the same if the unauthorized statement was pro-LGBTQ rather than pro-HK? There is no way to know for sure, but if the answer is "no" that means Blizzard is indirectly picking sides. Combine all that and Blizzard put themselves in an impossible situation with no good way forward. My personal opinion: it probably was about China, it probably was a decision made locally further down the corporate ladder, and US HQ is now stuck with something they can't fix.

Craighead 7y ago

Equating so called cancel culture with China political speech policing are truly very different things.

Kaveren 7y ago

this is a really illogical take that sounds extremely biased. I do not believe for a second that if American companies did not do anything you claim they do, that would somehow make Blizzard not be threatened by the Chinese government in this situation. like I have no clue how you can relate these two. we aren't just talking about public backlash, we are talking about the threat that a government can harm your operations in their country for speech. this is so different.