6 ms·

He needs to be fired. I want to play one of their games but I won't until bobby kotick is no longer the CEO. So never.

tjpnz 5y ago
I deleted my Blizzard account when they censored and banned a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong. It's a shame because I had been planning to give WoW classic a try. Edit: While the tournament was held in Taiwan, Blitzchung is actually a native of Hong Kong.
- chii 5y ago
  while i do understand the plight of HK's fight, it does make sense that a non-affiliated individual should not be able to make political statements on someone else's platform, unless with prior consent. The competitor should be free to make his case in his own platform(s), but not on a platform he doesn't own if the owners of that platform doesn't want to affiliate themselves with the political discourse.
  - gaganyaan 5y ago
    This is just appeasement. "Just don't make a fuss" is sticking your fingers in your ears as atrocities happen.
    - kodemager 5y ago
      I agree, but how do you boycott China? Every piece of hardware that I own has parts in them that was manufactured in China and where I live there aren’t alternatives. I too deleted my Blizzard account in the wake of the HK nonsense, but it’s not like I had bought anything from them since Diablo 3 released considering I refunded my Warcraft 3 remade, so it felt a little like virtue signalling that nobody probably noticed. Especially because we subscribe to Disney+ (I have young children), and I still buy a lot of things that were likely made by near (or possibly) slave labour. I know it’s still better to avoid what you can, but I can’t help but feel a little hypocritical about it. At least with Blizard it turned out to have been a very good call when their toxic culture was revealed.
  - harles 5y ago
    Which platforms are left to make statements on?
    - chii 5y ago
      I do believe making a website is still cheap and easy. Not to mention some platforms like twitter do allow for political discourse on them (even if spotty). The idea is that if the platform owners don't want it, a platform user should respect that choice.
      - jonathankoren 5y ago
        Respect is a bit too far for me. Accept, is more more style. When you play in someone else's sandbox, you're going to have to deal with their rules. No one is guaranteed an audience.
        naiwenwt 5y ago
        Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. You can argue that Blizzard was well within their rights in punishing Blitzchung, but then Blizzard's audience is well within their rights to be upset with said punishment.
        jonathankoren 5y ago
        > Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. Actually, you don’t have to accept that. That’s what moderation is for.
        naiwenwt 5y ago
        Moderation is a method to manage the risk, if anything the existence of moderation indicates that platforms accept it to some extent.
  - virtue3 5y ago
    That would violate freedom of speech. Which is the first amendment of the bill of rights of America. And blizzard being an American company this really irked a lot of us. "The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. ... It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely." Freedom of speech does not protect you from harming others directly (yelling "bomb" on an airplane is not protected). But the issue with HK and China is -entirely- what the first amendment is trying to protect (albeit usually this is usually to protect Americans to complain about America). When Americans see an American company denying someone what we perceive as an unalienable right it becomes infuriating.
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      You're misunderstanding how the first amendment is applied. Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation.
      - seneca 5y ago
        > Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation. This is absolutely incorrect. To Americans, Freedom of Speech is, as the person you're replying to said, an inalienable right of all human beings. It's a fundamental principal of our society. The first amendment is a legal constraint on the US government that keeps them from violating that right. It does not grant the right, the right belongs to all humans simply from the nature of being. Think of it like this. People don't think murder is wrong because it's illegal. We have laws in place making it illegal to setup how government handles murder, and we want those laws because murdering a person is wrong at a deep and fundamental level. The laws follow from the underlying ethical beliefs. Freedom of Speech works exactly the same way. So a company like Blizzard censoring an activist is not a violation of the First Amendment, but it is arguable a violation of Freedom of Speech.
        5y ago
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Exercising our rights to boycott their platform isn’t denying their right to lick commie boots. :p Seriously though, this whole “you criticized their speech, but they have a right to free speech” fallacy is really getting old.
  - junon 5y ago
    > it does make sense that No, sorry, it makes absolutely zero sense.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Blizzard will bow to what the customers want; if more customers want people to be able to make pro-HK statements, then they are going to allow it. Otherwise they won't. Also, the platform has little to do with it. Disney dropped someone for statements made primarily on Twitter. They decided they didn't want their brand associated with it.
  - bodge5000 5y ago
    If they can do what they like with their platform, for whatever reason, I can do what I like with my money/time, for whatever reason (eg not spending money on a platform because I dont like political stance). And now we're back to were we are now.
  - scoutt 5y ago
    I kind of agree with you, but just because it creates a precedent. If Blizzard allows a political statement, then now they have to allow other political statements too. As a result, they will have to "regulate" which political statements is allowed or denied, which will force them in a position of having to judge about what is wrong and what is right. And what corporation wants to do that? Not all political statements are "black" or "white", "right" or "wrong" (Manichaeism style), and there are a lot of gray areas sometimes, and everybody has something to complain about on Twitter. And if Blizzard decides "wrong" then they may suffer and repair the backslash. So the reaction from Blizzard is like the sign you used to see in a lot of bars: "No politics, no religion". Understand I'm not saying that the player is wrong about what he said, or justifying what happens in HK.
- LukeShu 5y ago
  > a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong Not that it makes much of a difference, but: It is my understanding that he's from Hong Kong, and is not Taiwanese. It is my understanding that Taiwan comes in to the picture only because the Blizzard event that he spoke out at was in Taiwan; that he has no connection to Taiwan.
  - tjpnz 5y ago
    >It is my understanding that he's from Hong Kong, and is not Taiwanese. Thanks for pointing that out, you're indeed correct that he's a Hong Konger. I've edited my comment.
pcurve 5y ago
It's embarrassing how he still has his job. Really shame on the board of directors at this point.
shultays 5y ago
Hard to fire someone that owns a good chunk of the company

I deleted my Blizzard account when they censored and banned a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong. It's a shame because I had been planning to give WoW classic a try. Edit: While the tournament was held in Taiwan, Blitzchung is actually a native of Hong Kong.

chii 5y ago
while i do understand the plight of HK's fight, it does make sense that a non-affiliated individual should not be able to make political statements on someone else's platform, unless with prior consent. The competitor should be free to make his case in his own platform(s), but not on a platform he doesn't own if the owners of that platform doesn't want to affiliate themselves with the political discourse.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  This is just appeasement. "Just don't make a fuss" is sticking your fingers in your ears as atrocities happen.
  - kodemager 5y ago
    I agree, but how do you boycott China? Every piece of hardware that I own has parts in them that was manufactured in China and where I live there aren’t alternatives. I too deleted my Blizzard account in the wake of the HK nonsense, but it’s not like I had bought anything from them since Diablo 3 released considering I refunded my Warcraft 3 remade, so it felt a little like virtue signalling that nobody probably noticed. Especially because we subscribe to Disney+ (I have young children), and I still buy a lot of things that were likely made by near (or possibly) slave labour. I know it’s still better to avoid what you can, but I can’t help but feel a little hypocritical about it. At least with Blizard it turned out to have been a very good call when their toxic culture was revealed.
- harles 5y ago
  Which platforms are left to make statements on?
  - chii 5y ago
    I do believe making a website is still cheap and easy. Not to mention some platforms like twitter do allow for political discourse on them (even if spotty). The idea is that if the platform owners don't want it, a platform user should respect that choice.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      Respect is a bit too far for me. Accept, is more more style. When you play in someone else's sandbox, you're going to have to deal with their rules. No one is guaranteed an audience.
      - naiwenwt 5y ago
        Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. You can argue that Blizzard was well within their rights in punishing Blitzchung, but then Blizzard's audience is well within their rights to be upset with said punishment.
        jonathankoren 5y ago
        > Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. Actually, you don’t have to accept that. That’s what moderation is for.
        naiwenwt 5y ago
        Moderation is a method to manage the risk, if anything the existence of moderation indicates that platforms accept it to some extent.
- virtue3 5y ago
  That would violate freedom of speech. Which is the first amendment of the bill of rights of America. And blizzard being an American company this really irked a lot of us. "The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. ... It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely." Freedom of speech does not protect you from harming others directly (yelling "bomb" on an airplane is not protected). But the issue with HK and China is -entirely- what the first amendment is trying to protect (albeit usually this is usually to protect Americans to complain about America). When Americans see an American company denying someone what we perceive as an unalienable right it becomes infuriating.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    You're misunderstanding how the first amendment is applied. Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation.
    - seneca 5y ago
      > Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation. This is absolutely incorrect. To Americans, Freedom of Speech is, as the person you're replying to said, an inalienable right of all human beings. It's a fundamental principal of our society. The first amendment is a legal constraint on the US government that keeps them from violating that right. It does not grant the right, the right belongs to all humans simply from the nature of being. Think of it like this. People don't think murder is wrong because it's illegal. We have laws in place making it illegal to setup how government handles murder, and we want those laws because murdering a person is wrong at a deep and fundamental level. The laws follow from the underlying ethical beliefs. Freedom of Speech works exactly the same way. So a company like Blizzard censoring an activist is not a violation of the First Amendment, but it is arguable a violation of Freedom of Speech.
      - 5y ago
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Exercising our rights to boycott their platform isn’t denying their right to lick commie boots. :p Seriously though, this whole “you criticized their speech, but they have a right to free speech” fallacy is really getting old.
- junon 5y ago
  > it does make sense that No, sorry, it makes absolutely zero sense.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Blizzard will bow to what the customers want; if more customers want people to be able to make pro-HK statements, then they are going to allow it. Otherwise they won't. Also, the platform has little to do with it. Disney dropped someone for statements made primarily on Twitter. They decided they didn't want their brand associated with it.
- bodge5000 5y ago
  If they can do what they like with their platform, for whatever reason, I can do what I like with my money/time, for whatever reason (eg not spending money on a platform because I dont like political stance). And now we're back to were we are now.
- scoutt 5y ago
  I kind of agree with you, but just because it creates a precedent. If Blizzard allows a political statement, then now they have to allow other political statements too. As a result, they will have to "regulate" which political statements is allowed or denied, which will force them in a position of having to judge about what is wrong and what is right. And what corporation wants to do that? Not all political statements are "black" or "white", "right" or "wrong" (Manichaeism style), and there are a lot of gray areas sometimes, and everybody has something to complain about on Twitter. And if Blizzard decides "wrong" then they may suffer and repair the backslash. So the reaction from Blizzard is like the sign you used to see in a lot of bars: "No politics, no religion". Understand I'm not saying that the player is wrong about what he said, or justifying what happens in HK.
LukeShu 5y ago
> a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong Not that it makes much of a difference, but: It is my understanding that he's from Hong Kong, and is not Taiwanese. It is my understanding that Taiwan comes in to the picture only because the Blizzard event that he spoke out at was in Taiwan; that he has no connection to Taiwan.
- tjpnz 5y ago
  >It is my understanding that he's from Hong Kong, and is not Taiwanese. Thanks for pointing that out, you're indeed correct that he's a Hong Konger. I've edited my comment.

pcurve 5y ago

It's embarrassing how he still has his job. Really shame on the board of directors at this point.

shultays 5y ago

Hard to fire someone that owns a good chunk of the company