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

Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 412 posts

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#131

Post by Circuits »

dak1 wrote: post #50

The CCP can move quickly and decisively to ban access to the world's 2nd largest market, and it uses that power to chill speech and force governments and companies to take actions it wants that are antithetical to a free society. Small nations and individual companies cannot stand up to this coercion individually, and free, market economies lack the organization to respond in a cohesive way. The optimistic belief tha…

I feel Activation should be held legally accountable for this decision. Perhaps, if they want to support the CCP, they should not be allowed to do business here in America.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#132

Post by notyourday »

radicsge wrote: post #77
upbeatlinux wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese government isn't stupid. It knows people circumvent the GFoC. Damage control as usual. I think the US corollary is "all enemies foreign and domestic".

Those people who can circumvent the GFoC, already knows that their leader is pulling down the whole country.

> Those people who can circumvent the GFoC, already knows that their leader is pulling down the whole country.

CCP is what is industrializing the country. There's not a single person in the West who is not a recent immigrant that lived in a pre-industrial society. In this case Chinese population supports CCP because between supporting some rich special people in HK protesting something and not going back to working the fields with bare hands, HK protesters lose.

West is ought to understand it.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#133

Post by NeedMoreTea »

jknoepfler wrote: post #85
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The west employs this tactic too but calls it a sanction or embargo.

No, it doesn't. Let's take an actual country rather than something vacuous like "The West". To start a company in the United States (for example), you do not need "an American business partner" controlled by the federal government of the United States. The fate of your company is not tied 100% to the approval or disapproval of that business partner's actions, which in the case of China are vigorously and actively pol…

> suggesting that Western Capitalism is corrupt, Marx was the one true prophet ... but you'd still be in business.

I wonder how that would have gone at the height of McCarthyism.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#135

Post by bilbo0s »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #119
bilbo0s wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, China has done nothing here though. This is the NBA and Blizzard acting to prevent what I like to call the "Weibo Outrage Machine" from revving too high. (Not that it worked, because in the NBA's case, the machine was red lining. In Blizzard's case, there was nary a peep though, so that one is a bit puzzling?) For any who were unaware, the "Weibo Outrage Machine" is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, thin…

The NBA said "the person can say what he wants on Twitter, even if we don't like it". Blizzard banned the player for a year, took his earnings from the tournament, and fired the casters that were interviewing him. Of course there's nary a peep about Blizzard.

However the case may be though, it's clear that the actors here are the "Weibo Outrage Machine", the NBA, and Blizzard. Which should be more concerning than Chinese government censorship. These outrage machines are are proving themselves at once more powerful than governments and less controllable.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#136

Post by RangerScience »

dekhn wrote: post #115
RangerScience wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in your opinion. Sources?

A collection of mainstream news sources, various government reports, and speculation.

Sorry, I mean, "I am interested in also reading your sources. Do you have any links that come to mind?"

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#137

Post by YayamiOmate »

tempsy wrote: post #57

Another incident: A fan at a 76ers game was escorted out after shouting "free Hong Kong" before a game against a CBA team in Philadelphia yesterday. https://twitter.com/Christie_Ileto/status/118177972224357580...

It would be interesting what wpukd happen if people on NBA games started wearing FreeHK shirts. Would they be ejected during game? That would really mean that china effectively censors US citizens.

Also what would happen if crowd pulled HK support en masse, escort out everyone?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#138

Post by jessaustin »

sp332 wrote: post #66
f-securus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they ejected fans that had HK posters?

Things are moving pretty fast. Silver came out on the side of free speech, as far as I can see, just a few hours before the fan was ejected for yelling "Free Hong Kong". It's possible that the Philadelphia officials thought they were following the league's lead even if the NBA's official stance had changed.

Someone else should probably try it. Then again, NBA tickets are expensive... maybe something to try in the fourth quarter?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#139

Post by falcolas »

jknoepfler wrote: post #102
intopieces wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>are being much more effective Absolutely. They’re beating us at our own game and revealing that American values were never freedom and democracy - those are just ways we think are good to make money. If a better system comes along we’re the first to jump on it.

This is laughably false. The press in the United States is and remains free to publish (virtually) whatever it wants about federal, state, and local government. We're free even to suggest that the electoral college is a terrible way to implement democratic election of representatives, to suggest that the current voting system undermines the legitimacy of the government, to propose and debate alternatives in the open…

So, I don't think it's as big a leap as it may seem. Bear with me a moment:

Modern communication between individuals relies on the internet. Even the government has acknowledged this, insisting that all of their services are available online.

All spaces for communication on the internet (including elements as low as DNS and hosting) rely on private companies.

Private companies can and do take censorious actions based on values that, at best, are layered upon the values of the country that the company operates in. However, at worst, the company's values need not have any relation to those of the countries they operate in.

Thus, the individual's freedom to express their thoughts relies on their thoughts not being censored by private companies. If one of the many companies that you depend upon for communication decides to not let you express that thought, you are unable to express that thought.

Of course, this applies to the internet and not government-owned meat-space, but government-managed meat-space is not where this communication is occurring. Particularly around the incident in Hong Kong.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#140

Post by chipotle_coyote »

macspoofing wrote: post #70
MBCook wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality is that corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints But they MUST. That’s the issue. There is no such thing as remaining neutral. What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? Now the west is mad and boycotting. NOT ban the player? Now China is pissed and kicking you out of the country. They were damned by someone either way. There was no neutral political stance they could take.…

>But they MUST. That’s the issue. Then what is the right answer? HK independence? >There is no such thing as remaining neutral. Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral? What position should a corporation take and which controversial topics? How about the IOC? Or FIFA? Or some charity? Or the EU? I don't see European nations, for example, taking any steps to challenge China. I don't see the public…

> Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.

In both those cases, though, that's still taking an action that supports one side and affronts the other. "Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action.

And, of course, there's an argument to be made that even doing that is effectively "taking a side," right? Because your (lack of) action still implicitly supports one side and affronts the other. Maybe letting players kneel during the anthem does piss off half your fan base, but explicitly banning them from kneeling pisses off the other half of your fan base.

As much as Rush lyrics may be the last refuge of scoundrels, there's a lot of truth in "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Post reply on HN