81–90 of 1001 posts
Previous discussion (for some reason, it was removed off the front page pretty quickly, hmm): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189491
Just read through the comments here and it's obvious why it got flagged off the front page. Grade A flamewar material.
Maybe I should've rephrased the title of the post better to prevent it next time.
Can we please start a cultural movement that forces large corporations to choose between appeasing Chinese censors and looking like fools to the rest of the west or getting banned in China. Really seems like a win win scenario.
Isn't that already true now? The problem is that most corporations seem to be picking the first option.
It needs to be clear to them that this is a binary choice, you either support totalitarianism or you are against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can we please start a cultural movement that forces large corporations to choose between appeasing Chinese censors and looking like fools to the rest of the west or getting banned in China. But what about the share-holder value?
That's the best part, there is no correct choice. Corporations love sitting the moral grey area on issues like this, but putting them in a position of having to choose between looking like Chinese stooges or getting banned from China will break their minds.
It sure doesn't seem to me that bending to the will of an authoritarian state is "sitting in the moral grey area." They've made their decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, okay. It seems to me like being critical of the Chinese government is popular with both sides of the American political spectrum. Maybe even more so with conservatives!
Yeah, but claiming moral high ground for boycotting Georgia over transgender bathrooms is hard while simultaneously doing business with China with the Uygur and Hong Kong situations.
Seems reasonable that they don't want to allow players to push their politics using the official Blizzard streams. They are free to do so in their spare time. What do you think Blizzard would do if some guy wore a MAGA hat in an official stream?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Chinese owners? Chinese Tencent owns 5 percent of Blizzard, if full owner of Riot Games, 48% of Epic Games, 11.5% of Bluehole (Fortnite and PUBG), 5% of Ubisoft. They are also investor in Discord. https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has-... AMC is fully owned by Chinese. The largest movie theater chain in the United States is fully owned by Chinese. Legendary Entertainment Group is owned…
Make them choose between the two markets. I'm tired of the idea that the Western and Chinese markets can both be appeased the middle of the road morality. What is happening in HK right now is wrong, and the west has fought wars over this very issue.
Which ones?
Also, China has nukes, we probably don't want to see that war starting. I don't think there's a good military option available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a company does a shit move and you want to take it out on kids? Doxing is never the answer. The answer is: stop using products from shit companies.
Direct action against executives, even by tiny groups, is far more likely to have an impact than passive boycotts. Eh, I guess virtue signalling is the priority on HN and not actual change. Think of the poor executives kids! Not Falun Gong, HKers or the Uyghurs.
If you're going to take "direct action" you should probably try to keep it fitting to the issue at hand. Swatting someone because they are in charge of something you don't like won't make your cause any more likeable to most observers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the part that confused me was the idea of one side in the culture war forcing companies to bow to China, as a tactical manoeuvre. I just can’t see the “unwoke” segments siding with China.
After reading further reply, I understand the idea as this: the "unwoke" side of the culture war sees a company proclaiming to be woke, and to expose them as hypocrites they do something that forces the company to either defy China or to reveal that their woke marketing is full of crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct action against executives, even by tiny groups, is far more likely to have an impact than passive boycotts. Eh, I guess virtue signalling is the priority on HN and not actual change. Think of the poor executives kids! Not Falun Gong, HKers or the Uyghurs.
Morally wrong, but technically not wrong. Many a dumb law was only changed after some politician ran afoul of it. If you're going to take "direct action" you should probably try to keep it fitting to the issue at hand. Swatting someone because they are in charge of something you don't like won't make your cause any more likeable to most observers.
In the end this isn't about opinions, you can very much coerce people to do what you want. Even the executives of BigCos.
Nobody should be able to sleep easy at night while running a company taking active measures to support the CCP.