Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

playhearthstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#981

Post by johnchristopher »

johnchristopher wrote: post #971
bayesian_horse wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can however be convinced, that certain offenses are indeed worthy of recognition. Racial slurs, for example. Sexual or sexist jokes in certain contexts. Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick.

I agree that for some culture or some communities or in some part of the world there are consensus around things. Coincidentally I stumbled upon a comment on imgur today that went like this: - canadian guy is in saskatoon, in a bar - chinese guy at the counter - chinese guy backs away from the counter with beverage - bumps into canadian guy he didn't see - canadian guy blurps 'woops, sorry' - chinese guy 'YOU APOLOGI…

Source if anyone is interested https://imgur.com/gallery/nBUysFF/comment/1724607027 (NSFW, imgur of course)

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#982

Post by anm89 »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #976
anm89 wrote: post #960

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

> People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece. I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good sta…

And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750.

Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#983

Post by pmiller2 »

gwright wrote: post #974
bliztw2019a wrote: post #973

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bigger philosophical question for the US Stage: When a corporation kills someone through their negligence, why does the punishment differ so much from what happens when a physical person does the same? Are corporations trying to pick and choose when they are treated like a person? Does that place them above people?

It is an interesting question. 1) I don't think "corporations" are picking and choosing, there is extensive legal history on this point. 2) Re: "kills someone through their negligence". I think you've abstracted too much for there to be a single answer. I gather you are talking about situations where no identifiable person lead to the death and so there is some sort of "collective" or "systemic" failure that "caused"…

Regarding point 1, when was the last time an American corporation was put in jail?

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#984

Post by pmiller2 »

Dove wrote: post #904

This is a very specific instance of a much more general problem. A lot of private companies control exclusive access to something with a value that dwarfs what you pay for it. I pay nothing for access to Twitter; if I build a business or a social life on the platform, it becomes something I would pay thousands of dollars to prevent losing. I pay nothing for access to Facebook; the memories they store at this point in…

I would argue that Blizzard is much less a hapless store clerk and more an addict whose supply is in jeopardy. They like Chinese money more than free speech, plain and simple. They could choose to get clean (stop taking Chinese money), and protect the public interest, but they choose not to.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#985

Post by tenebrisalietum »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #956
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly playing devil's advocate here: When the Constitution was written, free speech meant literally that, your ability to go to a public space and physically talk. No third party was involved as it is with any telecommunication technology. So the resources consumed in that speech were totally your own. The only way to strictly have that equivalent in the telecommunications realm is for me to own every communication…

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

Ok, so fine, free speech predates the Constitution. Consider my reference to the Constitution an example, rather than the definition.

My argument is still that you are not performing speech in the sense meant by "Free Speech" when you utilize telecommunication services.

Free speech and compelling third parties with telecommunications infrastructure to carry any of your speech unaltered are separate concepts.

I am particularly interested in how you can, if possible, link the two without using egalitarian arguments if possible.

Most people defend free speech irrespective of the economic status of the speaker so I'm hoping you or someone can come up with something that is also similarly non-dependent on economic status.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#986

Post by ummonk »

Skunkleton wrote: post #878
3minus1 wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between accidentally and knowingly breaking a rule. Regardless of if you feel the rule is fair or right, knowingly breaking is more egregious, e.g. manslaughter is not as bad as first or second degree murder.

Sometimes the moral choice is to break the rules.

Agreed. But you have to enforce the rules to make sure that people don't start breaking the rules over something trivial. The people making a moral choice to break the rules can live with a 12 month ban from the game.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#987

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

jonny_eh wrote: post #916
saltking112 wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s hilarious is that deletion of account might require government issued photo ID. The last step for me to stop doing business with a bad actor is by giving up my privacy.

Devil's advocate here: They probably put this check in place due to the extremely high number of hacked Battle.net accounts.

Don't even need to play Devil's Advocate here.

I guarantee 100% that this is the exact reason. If they're truly deleting ALL your data, could you imagine the customer service nightmare if someone's account got hacked and the attacker could issue a request to delete the entire account with no method for recovery?

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#988

Post by MrStonedOne »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #985
MrStonedOne wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

Ok, so fine, free speech predates the Constitution. Consider my reference to the Constitution an example, rather than the definition. My argument is still that you are not performing speech in the sense meant by "Free Speech" when you utilize telecommunication services. Free speech and compelling third parties with telecommunications infrastructure to carry any of your speech unaltered are separate concepts. I am par…

it's inaccessible for somebody who is poor in montana to travel to new york city and speak on a soap box in central park.

Should that be an argument against new york having free speech because its not accessible to some people?

Your last sentence confuses me because it sounds like you are arguing that if it's possible for somebody to be too poor to use a platform then that platform should never have free speech, and i'm not sure how those two concepts link.

Anywho. The ideological and moral principles of free speech exist in tandem with other ideological and moral principles. I run a forum for a game server to an open source game (I also run the game and the game server, but that's besides the point). This forum has sections with various names and the section names all spell out what type of discussions that section is intended to hold

If somebody wants to post about how badly they hate how I run the site or the game server, and post it on the role playing and table top rpg board, it will get removed, as its off topic, and nobody in the community would care. If they instead post that in any one of 5 sections that it would be on topic for, and i remove it, as I technically have to right to do, I will have trampled on that posters free speech, and everybody has the right to tell me to fuck off for doing so.

What you are failing to understand is that the principle of free speech is akin to the principle of not being a dick, its enforced by society in the same fuzzy matter where conflicting interests are concerned

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#989

Post by FDSGSG »

dang wrote: post #810
FDSGSG wrote: post #60

The obvious, necessary solution would be to respond by aggressively doxing the executives of Blizzard and their large stockholders. It's all about money until your wife and kids start getting calls at night and the cops kick in your door. There's no reason to remain civil when fighting those who'd stand against human rights.

This sort of flamebait isn't allowed here, and you've taken it to the point of trolling below. We ban accounts that do that on HN, so please don't. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190558 and marked it off-topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Where were I trolling?

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#990

Post by MrStonedOne »

anm89 wrote: post #960
MrStonedOne wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

They never mentioned "legally" either, so why are you bringing that up?
Post reply on HN