4 ms·

The first paragraph question "But I wonder if it’s ethical to play anything from [company], these days?" probably is the most discussion-worthy topic of this ar

The first paragraph question "But I wonder if it’s ethical to play anything from [company], these days?" probably is the most discussion-worthy topic of this article. I'd argue that the answer to that question is "yes", no matter if it's Blizzard or some other company. It's completely ethically valid to boycott a shitty company with shitty leadership and shitty culture (as OP puts it), however, it's also completely ethically valid to not boycott such a company and simply pick the best product. There is no ethical duty to participate in every fight; it's ethically good (and better) to "fight for good" but it's also completely ethically acceptable to not put effort in any one of the near-infinite of those fights - it's only unethical if you're actually harming others or doing evil, and just living your life is not that. Guilt by distant association is an abhorrent concept that should not be validated - using someone's products does not imply supporting the company's policies or leaders/owners personal behavior or political actions. If you want to make a point of ostracising someone, sure, go right ahead, but there's a very high bar to pass to state that it would an ethical requirement for everyone else to participate in that ostracism - IMHO it might be debatable if it would be a an ethical requirement in case of clearly convicted murderers, and even more so in cases which are (a) less severe than murder and (b) the particular culprits less clearly proven.

awild 5y ago
You can however question platforming an entity with such a shitty history or at least contextualise it like in the op.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Is playing a computer game "platforming an entity"? It's really fascinating how these neologisms evolve.
  - awild 5y ago
    No, but recommending it to a lot of people is. Literally.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    No more fascinating than the root-level claim that >Guilt by distant association is an abhorrent concept that should not be validated - using someone's products does not imply supporting the company's policies or leaders/owners personal behavior or political actions eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. I can't think of a more meaningful way to support something than to give it money...
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Perhaps I chose an inexact word - buying from them is not a gift but a business transaction, it does not imply endorsing those aspects. IMHO the core concept of a civilized society is the ability to have reasonable interactions even if people strongly disagree or hate each other - thus the legitimacy of doing business with, supplying products to everyone and using everyone's products. To use a different controversy as an example where both sides are somewhat large, we do see both ends of the abortion debate consider each other as grossly unethical, sufficiently unethical to justify asking for a boycott of vocal supporters of the opposite side. That's understandable, you have freedom of association and you can not patronize someone you despise, however, once you start to demand that others join your boycott and say it's an ethical duty or "with us or against us" IMHO that's crossing the line of how a civilized society should behave; people holding all kinds of opinions (including various opinions I despise and consider harmful) are still part of our society, and we should be able to combine criticizing the abhorrent opinions while still allowing those people to participate in society - i.e. buying from them, selling to them, employing them, working for them, renting them apartments and renting from them as landlords - and "platforming entities" as well, even if they are from your "enemy outgroup". I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective) seem unethical - IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion.
voakbasda 5y ago
Replace “play video games” with “use fossil fuels”. Is it still ethical to participate when outcome is climate change?
- me_me_me 5y ago
  It might not be an easy way to avoid using coal electricity. Not buying a game in game saturated market is not that hard or essential to quality of life
- laumars 5y ago
  You could s/play video games/ with a whole plethora of morally objectionable strings but that doesn’t make it equivalent to playing computer games.
- syockit 5y ago
  Yes, if it's used in efforts to combat climate change, e.g. powering alternative energy research, or attending climate change conferences, etc.
- umvi 5y ago
  Is it ethical to pay taxes to a government that does unethical things?
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Well, I do use fossil fuels in various ways (I have a car, I have a heated home, and I consume electricity which is approx. half fossil locally) - and yes, I do not consider continuing to do so unethical. It would be preferable to use less fossil fuels, which is a consideration for me, but I definitely do not consider that there's an ethical duty for me to use zero fossil fuels. While we can (and should!) agitate for policy changes to reduce fossil fuel usage, it's appropriate to request that, I do not consider that it would be ethically appropriate for me or you to demand total "fossil abstinence" from any person around us - freedom and respecting others' freedom is also a valid ethical value, and actually imposing your will on others requires substantial justification, and having ethical ends do not imply all means would be ethical.
gregd 5y ago
Sometimes I'm torn between boycotting a company and understanding that surely not everyone who works for Blizzard deserves said boycott. Who does a boycott really hurt?
- Retric 5y ago
  In all but the most large scale example it’s only the company’s shareholders that are hurt which arguably is the perfect target as they ultimately control the company.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    I.e. you hurt the retirement funds and people owning ETF's (the largest Blizzard shareholders are Vanguard, Fidelity and Blackrock, through their ETF funds which track e.g. S&P 500 so would not/ could not divest Blizzard because of that, nor would attempt to control the company), and do not hurt the particular company managers who are actually making the unethical decisions.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Owning stock means being responsible for the companies actions, the fact most people want to passively invest is part of the problem.
- ctvo 5y ago
  > Who does a boycott really hurt? The largest shareholders? ATVI has dropped significantly since this episode started. The assumption is this forces changes in management and leads to changes to address the toxic culture that triggered the boycott (more likely general instability hurting confidence in ATVI's ability to deliver). It looks like that's how this is playing out.
simonh 5y ago
There's ethics and there's legality. If a practice is truly abhorrent then it should be illegal and penalised as such, and ethics for consumers at that point is moot. What was going on at Blizzard was illegal and they go in trouble for it and that's all to the good. I'm all for customers apply pressure through their buying habits, as you say that's entirely ethical. It's your right as a citizen. However most people don't know about any of this stuff and they shouldn't really have to. Companies are huge organisations, many of them have many conscientious and ethical employees that do a lot that's great, but then some that are less ethical or are under a lot of pressure or have few options all shitty and bad things happen. Most of those things we never hear about. The chances that this one thing you hear about is truly representative and differentiating from the competition is probably actually pretty unlikely. So sure, especially if you have a cause close to your heart that's fine. We should be holding companies to account, but laws and regulators exist for a reason. They represent us and are our primary tool for dealing with this sort of issue.
blibble 5y ago
> however, it's also completely ethically valid to not boycott such a company and simply pick the best product that would rule out anything recent by Blizzard then
Omekutio 5y ago
I highly doubt that your way of thinking reflects in any way the definition of ethically. Of course not everything is black and white, but its probably more ethical to not play something from a company with clear violations of ethical rules than not. Of course using a product from a company implies supporting or not caring enough about it. There is no need for you to play games from blizzard. I personally bought and play Diablo 2 and not because i think its 'ethical' to do so but because i actually care less about the current blizzard controversy than i care about playing a game which has very strong childhood memories. I'm fully aware that i'm doing what plenty of others are doing: - Driving by car while we are aware of climate change - sometimes keeping my PC running while not necessary - Buying sweet and highly processed food - Not using my money to help people to eat And if we all would actually be more aware of this and agree altogether we could make the earth a much more awesome place. But thats not how it is.

awild 5y ago

You can however question platforming an entity with such a shitty history or at least contextualise it like in the op.

slibhb 5y ago
Is playing a computer game "platforming an entity"? It's really fascinating how these neologisms evolve.
- awild 5y ago
  No, but recommending it to a lot of people is. Literally.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  No more fascinating than the root-level claim that >Guilt by distant association is an abhorrent concept that should not be validated - using someone's products does not imply supporting the company's policies or leaders/owners personal behavior or political actions eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. I can't think of a more meaningful way to support something than to give it money...
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Perhaps I chose an inexact word - buying from them is not a gift but a business transaction, it does not imply endorsing those aspects. IMHO the core concept of a civilized society is the ability to have reasonable interactions even if people strongly disagree or hate each other - thus the legitimacy of doing business with, supplying products to everyone and using everyone's products. To use a different controversy as an example where both sides are somewhat large, we do see both ends of the abortion debate consider each other as grossly unethical, sufficiently unethical to justify asking for a boycott of vocal supporters of the opposite side. That's understandable, you have freedom of association and you can not patronize someone you despise, however, once you start to demand that others join your boycott and say it's an ethical duty or "with us or against us" IMHO that's crossing the line of how a civilized society should behave; people holding all kinds of opinions (including various opinions I despise and consider harmful) are still part of our society, and we should be able to combine criticizing the abhorrent opinions while still allowing those people to participate in society - i.e. buying from them, selling to them, employing them, working for them, renting them apartments and renting from them as landlords - and "platforming entities" as well, even if they are from your "enemy outgroup". I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective) seem unethical - IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion.

voakbasda 5y ago

Replace “play video games” with “use fossil fuels”. Is it still ethical to participate when outcome is climate change?

me_me_me 5y ago
It might not be an easy way to avoid using coal electricity. Not buying a game in game saturated market is not that hard or essential to quality of life
laumars 5y ago
You could s/play video games/ with a whole plethora of morally objectionable strings but that doesn’t make it equivalent to playing computer games.
syockit 5y ago
Yes, if it's used in efforts to combat climate change, e.g. powering alternative energy research, or attending climate change conferences, etc.
umvi 5y ago
Is it ethical to pay taxes to a government that does unethical things?
PeterisP 5y ago
Well, I do use fossil fuels in various ways (I have a car, I have a heated home, and I consume electricity which is approx. half fossil locally) - and yes, I do not consider continuing to do so unethical. It would be preferable to use less fossil fuels, which is a consideration for me, but I definitely do not consider that there's an ethical duty for me to use zero fossil fuels. While we can (and should!) agitate for policy changes to reduce fossil fuel usage, it's appropriate to request that, I do not consider that it would be ethically appropriate for me or you to demand total "fossil abstinence" from any person around us - freedom and respecting others' freedom is also a valid ethical value, and actually imposing your will on others requires substantial justification, and having ethical ends do not imply all means would be ethical.

gregd 5y ago

Sometimes I'm torn between boycotting a company and understanding that surely not everyone who works for Blizzard deserves said boycott. Who does a boycott really hurt?

Retric 5y ago
In all but the most large scale example it’s only the company’s shareholders that are hurt which arguably is the perfect target as they ultimately control the company.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  I.e. you hurt the retirement funds and people owning ETF's (the largest Blizzard shareholders are Vanguard, Fidelity and Blackrock, through their ETF funds which track e.g. S&P 500 so would not/ could not divest Blizzard because of that, nor would attempt to control the company), and do not hurt the particular company managers who are actually making the unethical decisions.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Owning stock means being responsible for the companies actions, the fact most people want to passively invest is part of the problem.
ctvo 5y ago
> Who does a boycott really hurt? The largest shareholders? ATVI has dropped significantly since this episode started. The assumption is this forces changes in management and leads to changes to address the toxic culture that triggered the boycott (more likely general instability hurting confidence in ATVI's ability to deliver). It looks like that's how this is playing out.

simonh 5y ago

There's ethics and there's legality. If a practice is truly abhorrent then it should be illegal and penalised as such, and ethics for consumers at that point is moot. What was going on at Blizzard was illegal and they go in trouble for it and that's all to the good. I'm all for customers apply pressure through their buying habits, as you say that's entirely ethical. It's your right as a citizen. However most people don't know about any of this stuff and they shouldn't really have to. Companies are huge organisations, many of them have many conscientious and ethical employees that do a lot that's great, but then some that are less ethical or are under a lot of pressure or have few options all shitty and bad things happen. Most of those things we never hear about. The chances that this one thing you hear about is truly representative and differentiating from the competition is probably actually pretty unlikely. So sure, especially if you have a cause close to your heart that's fine. We should be holding companies to account, but laws and regulators exist for a reason. They represent us and are our primary tool for dealing with this sort of issue.

blibble 5y ago

> however, it's also completely ethically valid to not boycott such a company and simply pick the best product that would rule out anything recent by Blizzard then

Omekutio 5y ago

I highly doubt that your way of thinking reflects in any way the definition of ethically. Of course not everything is black and white, but its probably more ethical to not play something from a company with clear violations of ethical rules than not. Of course using a product from a company implies supporting or not caring enough about it. There is no need for you to play games from blizzard. I personally bought and play Diablo 2 and not because i think its 'ethical' to do so but because i actually care less about the current blizzard controversy than i care about playing a game which has very strong childhood memories. I'm fully aware that i'm doing what plenty of others are doing: - Driving by car while we are aware of climate change - sometimes keeping my PC running while not necessary - Buying sweet and highly processed food - Not using my money to help people to eat And if we all would actually be more aware of this and agree altogether we could make the earth a much more awesome place. But thats not how it is.