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

291–300 of 412 posts

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#291

Post by dang »

aslaan wrote: post #284
dang wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many topics discussed on HN inevitably have some political overlap. That doesn't make it ok to post flamebait, cheap one-liners, and so on. This standard is well established here, and if you read the HN guidelines you'll find much there that expresses it. For example: " Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " In other words, when the topic becomes political, tha…

Satire is sometimes the most effective means of pointing out an unfair bias (See: South Park). It seems clear to me that bringing to light a clear political bias is not only applicable to the topic but offering a thought provoking viewpoint on how free speech is not only being threatened by an external entity (China in this case), but domestically by our peers. The question asked was about US leadership doing somethi…

What I posted was bog-standard HN moderation, a routine thing where we try to limit the tendency of threads to go into outright flamewar and keep the discussion more substantive. That's the idea of this site and it's what the bulk of the community wants.

Would you mind familiarizing yourself a bit more with how HN works? The links I posted upthread are a good place to start.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#292

Post by jessaustin »

dirtyid wrote: post #241
cooljacob204 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is jumping to a heck of a lot of conclusions with no real basis.

It's Gordon G. Chang who has been calling for Chinese collapse via all sorts of deceptive narratives in the last 20 years. No one who studies China takes him seriously.

I had to wonder about the fascination with a fairly innocuous decades-old opinion of Pres. Carter's. Talk about beating a dead horse...

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#293

Post by briffle »

tempsy wrote: post #99
UseStrict wrote: post #4

It's a weird day when I find myself agreeing with Marco Rubio. But it's true, China is effectively attempting a global chill on free speech by gating market access. If we don't stand up now, the effects will be felt long into the future.

Something tells me this will end with Apple in the middle. Can't think of a company more exposed to both China and the US.

You mean that company that is all about privacy, and refuses to help the US government access phones of domestic terrorism incidents, but moves all china iCloud storage (and keys) to another company based in China?

Apple has tried very hard to appease both sides, and if they suffer for it, it's their own fault.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#294

Post by kaybe »

celticmusic wrote: post #63
BrandonMarc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto South Park. By telling people they cannot watch South Park, they have guaranteed everyone will want to watch that episode. That's the lesson Dolores Umbridge inadvertently taught us in Harry Potter # 5.

There was recently a brouhaha over a cosplayer being accused of blackface for cosplaying a league of legends character named Pyke. This cosplayer was a finalist and the competition in question removed her over it. When I first encountered it this morning my thought was that she ultimately wins because she's getting exposure that she never would have gotten before, and most people aren't ridiculous.

So what would be the PC way to cosplay a specific dark-skinned character when you are really light-skinned?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#295

Post by wavefunction »

himlion wrote: post #148
darawk wrote: post #143

It's almost as though we need a president interested in some kind of trade...conflict with China. If only we had one of those.

I hate Trump for a lot of reasons, but I support his way of dealing with China.

I don't support his methods which seem ineffective and actively net deleterious.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#296

Post by [deleted] »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #238
jknoepfler wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make an argument, don't be intellectually lazy. How do you think it would have gone? Spitballing some historical fiction for the admittedly bizarre editorial? There would have been a public hue and cry. The editor who published the opinion piece would have lost their job, heads would have rolled (figuratively, not literally) in the WSJ editorial board. The person who wrote the editorial would have had a bad time in t…

As you confirm, the facts are straight: "The editor who published the opinion piece would have lost their job, heads would have rolled, etc" The public pressure to adopt a particular line was comparable. The consequences for a company or personality not adopting a similar line were, and often still are "tied 100% to the approval or disapproval" which sees someone step down after a foolish quote. Hundreds were impriso…

[deleted]

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#297

Post by sushid »

rapsey wrote: post #260
heyyyouu wrote: post #35

What is really interesting about this is how completely and utterly horrible a job Blizzard did in anticipating and preparing this very obvious possibility, and thus is so poorly handling every single aspect of this.This so obviously was likely to happen that it easily could have been anticipated and planned for to be dealt with in a much, much more professional way, and yet clearly they didn't, and it's beyond inexc…

> How they've (mis)handled this will be studied by business and PR students for years to come. I doubt it. The internet has a very short attention span and online activism is pretty much useless.

Really? “Online activism” is how Trump got elected. It also raised millions for ALS many years ago despite all the naysayers claiming it’ll do nothing.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#298

Post by sixstringtheory »

SilasX wrote: post #69
UseStrict wrote: post #4

It's a weird day when I find myself agreeing with Marco Rubio. But it's true, China is effectively attempting a global chill on free speech by gating market access. If we don't stand up now, the effects will be felt long into the future.

Where are the usual geniuses that feel obligated to explain to us that this doesn't violate the First Amendment, with the subtle implication that we therefore shouldn't care about it?

I'm not sure the Venn diagram overlaps in the way you think it does. If someone points out to you that someone getting fired from their company for something they said is not a government infringement of free speech, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't think it's an important event. Just that the government didn't and maybe can't have anything to do with it. You have to know what direction you're pointed in to start talking about making a difference.

In this particular situation, I'd say:

- China is wrong to suppress free expression of HKers, and furthermore I believe it's incumbent upon HKers to assert their, as I see it through the lens of my culture, natural born right to that expression.

- Blizzard and the NBA are wrong to discourage the expression of its employees or associates on this particular matter (supporting another culture asserting values like our own), but those harmed do not have the same recourse as a citizen would against their government (with the obvious exceptions of protected classes, which I'm not sure applies here, IANAL). There is only market recourse, aka boycott⁎, or potentially government regulation to protect political speech in the workplace (not sure if that already exists, but it sounds like a dangerous path to me as all kinds of wacky shit could be claimed to be political).

⁎ It strikes me that an embargo or sanction is a kind of political boycott, is that what you'd like to see? Because I'm not outright opposed to a government curtailing business with other governments that refuse to share foundational values. But this is a tricky road too because it basically leads to the kinds of debates like those made to refuse service to PoC or LGBT communities. In the US we have the SCOTUS to help decide those questions, what is the global analogue?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#299

Post by ericd »

mdpopescu wrote: post #216
motivic wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a Chinese American but my wife is Chinese. I have a large number of Chinese friends. You may be surprised to learn that vast majority of Chinese natives are very pro-China; and while they can be critical of the Chinese government at times, they tend to be united against any actions taken by foreign entities they consider anti-China or anti-Chinese government. Talk to a few Chinese immigrants and you will know. T…

The same thing happens with the US: despite the problems that (most of) the rest of the world has with its government, the US citizens are very much supportive of their government. To paraphrase your last statement, as long as the US can manage to not destroy their economy completely, the US public will by and large support the government.

I would say that most Americans are actually very angry about the US government.
Post reply on HN