581–590 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Playing the devils advocate, maybe they are using an alt account because they don’t want people like you finding them in real life.
How about the US forcing other companies (Huawei) into not doing business with countries it doesn't like (Iran) and attempting to extradite foreign individuals (CFO of Huawei) to advance that aim.
I'm not saying what CCP is doing is correct but the US has been doing the same shit for decades. Governments have always used companies as pawns for political purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're going to repeat the same cycle with Vietnam and India, we'd do well to encourage democracy this go-around. If we elevate authoritarian countries to our level, democracy may be in for a rough future. We should be learning a lot from the China situation. Modern China proves that authoritarian capitalism works and that you don't need freedom or liberty for your citizens. And that's incredibly scary. Imagine if…
> If we're going to repeat the same cycle with Vietnam and India, we'd do well to encourage democracy this go-around. I don't think the idea is to introduce democracy, because it's cheaper if the people making our consumer goods had less rights. It was like that with the original banana republics, and it's like that now. Sure we the people may want democracy and we may elect people who want to spread democracy (like…
So we are at the point where American video game developers are banning people from e-sports competitions for their comments over a domestic issue in a foreign country? Because the Chinese government probably didn't like his comments, that counts as 'public disrepute'? This is just wild to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should do. The West needs to decide whether it is going to stand for China being able to silence criticism of it in the West, or not.
Ironically, there's little the US government can do here without dragging things back towards the McCarthy era. What would we have them do? Apply pressure to Activision/Blizzard to reverse the company's own internal policy on "keep politics out of the game stuff?" That's a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech, the press, and / or association, to tell a private company who they must endorse. It's not unpreceden…
We have laws prohibiting private actors from interfering with American foreign policy. And we have safe harbours for protected speech. Combining these two, narrowly, to apply to Hong Kong and Taiwan might thread the needle.
To get around First Amendment issues, it would have to be a law saying, in effect, private actors may not punish employees, contractors or members for expressing opinions connected to Hong Kong or Taiwan’s proto-democratic and democratic systems. (This would probably also require Congress recognise Taiwan’s sovereignty, which after Hong Kong looks necessary.)
China is clearly up to no good, but I can't shake the feeling that there would be something off about allowing political soapboxing in apolitical events like this. Should people have a set list of political ideas to propagate at the end of every interview? "My deck was not strong enough in the end-game. And also legalize assault rifles and support the Kurds". I dunno.
Personally, I believe that support has shifted in computer gaming as compared to sports, and will continue to shift.
In sports we use things like spears, shoes, bicycles, up to racing cars. But none of them relies on a narrative or story, except by the story around the sport itself. Few - if any - of the sports are part of culture the way computer games already are, and we see no stopping of this progression anytime soon.
This explicit cultural relevance taken together with the fact that China, and several other countries for that matter, already has made gaming political by requiring games to not feature elements that oppose their regime, sensibilities, or culture, makes a compelling argument that competitors must be allowed a greater freedom of speech, even in the context of competitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is wild, but it's also part of their own rules: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGVTuRlXkAA0ovF?format=png Honest question: Can we call this unfair if it was already laid out as part of their rules?
Yes. You presuppose that all rules - via their nature of being rules - are automatically fair. They aren't. Especially not if they're not arrived at by consensus, but unilaterally laid out.
They're saying we should just assume it's fair? What kind of idiotic notion is this?
Anyway, I don't need to know because won't play it anymore.
Interesting how an incidence in gaming garner more eye balls on the topic of Hong Kong politics than whole month combined. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Good for the people of Hong Kong. The topic of Hong Kong didn't struck me as sensational/desperate as it deserves until a Hong Kong friend send me this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yXTHODE24Q Am moved by the clip, especial…
> into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or
> otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from
> Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in
> addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the
> Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.
This is why "cancel culture" needs to end, companies simply shouldn't be getting involved in the speech of an individual. Yes, some words are hurtful, but overall it just doesn't pay off for anybody. You can always find somebody who is offended, this is just a race to the bottom. We're also now seeing the negative effects come through onto LGBT keywords and Youtube monetization.
As for worrying about China, if you even trip up once you'll find yourself kicked out. If you play their game, you'll be rewarded by having to hire state spies into your company architecture, your software back-doored, your customers censored and your source code cloned. And for your participation the CCP will take a large percentage of your profits within China.
Also, seeing how much of a percentage the CCP takes from places such as the film industry, I'm surprised other Countries don't just match it - why should one Country demand so much tax and the others not? What's worse is that governments then invest tonnes of time and money trying to protect these rackets, whereas the CCP puts in very little to no effort in upholding copyrighted material (unless such copyright is Chinese held).