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

391–400 of 412 posts

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#391

Post by nobodyandproud »

556343throwaway wrote: post #329
netsharc wrote: post #26

Great Streisand moves by China though, previously gamers or basketball fans might not really care about what's happening in Hong Kong/China in general, but within 2 days they (China) have raised awareness of what a shitty overlord they are.

China doesn’t really care what non Chinese citizens think. The government is more afraid of its own citizens starting an uprising. The riots in Hong Kong saved the CPC. The people in Mainland China were already starting to get upset at the government because of how the trade war was affecting the economy. The implicit contract being the people won’t rebel if the economy is good. Luckily for the CPC, the Hong Kong rio…

Time will tell whether they care or not, but I believe the CCP has moved past mere stability and support.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#392

Post by SamReidHughes »

tremblane wrote: post #360
dvt wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I visit HN because it provides more or less serious and intellectually-stimulating conversation with a diverse group of people that have diverse (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints. It's not that funny stuff isn't amusing, it's that it's counter to what HN might be trying to achieve.

A discussion of how this type of event could affect other large MMO developers, such as CCP, could be relevant. There's a large Chinese playerbase in EVE Online. > It's not that funny stuff isn't amusing, it's that it's counter to what HN might be trying to achieve. So, keep it serious. No Having fun. Gotchya.

You can have fun, but your joke has to be funny and original. Edit: Maybe just funny.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#393

Post by upbeatlinux »

enraged_camel wrote: post #194
rayiner wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not recently.

That's because most people don't understand that "freedom of speech" and "free speech", while related concepts, are actually different. Freedom of speech is what the US Constitution guarantees. It says the government cannot limit people's ability to speak their mind, and cannot punish people for speaking their mind. Note that it says nothing about what private entities can do, especially on platforms they own and ope…

> we need to rid ourselves of the idea that all ideas are equally valid and deserve equal amounts of airtime and consideration

What would you call this event? The genocide of ideas (by the righteous)?

Who decides which ideas are invalid or lack merit? Is there a social credit system to value / devalue those with ideas and prevent them from transmitting them?

At what point does it extend from the online world into every day life?

What happens to those people when they can't express themselves online or in real life?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#394

Post by Knove »

godot wrote: post #281
Knove wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe what I mean is not clear enough. I imagine that a star, just a few days after 9/11, openly declared that 9/11 was a great recovery movement.

You're being downvoted (and rightfully, I believe), but you do sound genuine (so far at least), so let me speak a little bit more and hope your mind might change even just a little bit. First, as pvg said, a massive protest is not analogous to 9/11. But, let's put even that aside for a moment, and pretend that they are analogous. The more proper analogy is this: Pretend that after 9/11, a Malaysian singer working for…

Believe me, if this Malaysian's remarks really hurt the American people, we will not express any dissatisfaction. We can even criticize this person with the American people. Should we not distinguish right from wrong? What does it have to do with revenue stream?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#395

Post by macspoofing »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #140
macspoofing wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>n both those cases, though, that's still taking an action

No. That is insane.

Being neutral is not the same as taking an action. I know we live in a twitter world where everything is black or white but you don't get to create a false dichotomy of "you're either with me or against me" - there is always a third choice of "I refuse to get involved".

>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.

You're parsing out meanings from words that aren't there. Sure Blizzard could have done nothing, but they did decide that their platform shouldn't be used to espouse political messages, even ones they may privately agree with. If you want to be pedantic that's 'taking an action', but the action is NOT "I support China", nor "I support Hong Kong protestors", but rather, "I have no position on the matter because I'm a video game company that is interested in selling video games and running StarCraft tournaments".

Why are you so intent on creating a division where there is none and forcing everyone to choose a side?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#396

Post by macspoofing »

buttman2077 wrote: post #258
macspoofing wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you boycotting Chinese made products? What are you doing to 'support American values'? And which values? 2nd Amendment rights?

I’m not sure what my habits have to do with my expectations of US corporations. They sure don’t have any constitutional pressure to support our first, second, sixth, and other amendments, but nonetheless, I expect them to. It doesn’t have to be so polarizing: if I make an effort to value our constitution, I expect at least the corporations that impact and influence our society to too. If I don’t like it, I start a di…

>I’m not sure what my habits have to do with my expectations of US corporations.

Because it's indicative of this armchair general/keyboard warrior mentality where you sure as heck as strong opinions online which have no impact on your life, but you're not willing to sacrifice one iota of your personal comfort to actually live what you espouse.

For some reason you want companies to exit China or get involved in internal Chinese politics but you're perfectly willing to keep buying chinese or chinese-made products - because it would be too hard to boycott them and have it actually impact your life.

Stepping back, you see the same thing at the national level. You're criticizing a VIDEO GAME company for wanting to stay neutral, but you aren't calling for European nations or your country to recall their ambassadors from China to breaking relations? It's indicative.

Corporations exist to create products and services. That's what they are good at. You do not want to push social policy.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#397

Post by macspoofing »

EpicEng wrote: post #202
macspoofing wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral? No, there is not. At least, not any longer. The moment a company dips their toes into the Chinese market they are getting into bed with an oppressive, authoritarian regime who dictates the rules of conduct. This on turn forces companies like Blizzard to play along with the CCP lest they lose revenue. There is no neutral; the CCP forces you to chose a side,…

>The moment a company dips their toes into the Chinese market they are getting into bed with an oppressive, authoritarian regime who dictates the rules of conduct.

And what does it mean for YOU to buy chinese or chinese-made products, or products made by companies that also sell in China. Are you in bed with the CCP?

>There is no neutral;

Yes there is. Why are you so intent on forcing a false dichotomy?

I don't have a strong opinion on what's happening in Hong Kong and I was actually in HK during the July protests. The city looked like any other city with people doing regular city things like shopping, taking the subway and going to work. How am I supposed to take a side when I don't even know what the population of HK (not just the protestors) actually want. Any position I take will be out of ignorance, is that better than being neutral?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#398

Post by notyourday »

danaris wrote: post #387
notyourday wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's easy to get people to take your side of made up stories. These are not made up stories. Chinese population remembers about having finally electricity everywhere and moving from working farm fields to maybe getting a job in a factory and not using outhouses. There are over a billion of them. HK population remembers being a special people with British institutions. There are 7.4 million of them.

HK retaining its autonomy—like it's had since 1999 when it returned to Chinese control—would not in any way lead to a return to working farm fields for ordinary mainlanders.

Chinese population - not HK - remembers what it was to live with the outhouses. HK remembers when it (HK) mattered because Chinese population lived with the outhouses.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#399

Post by danaris »

notyourday wrote: post #398
danaris wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HK retaining its autonomy—like it's had since 1999 when it returned to Chinese control—would not in any way lead to a return to working farm fields for ordinary mainlanders.

Chinese population - not HK - remembers what it was to live with the outhouses. HK remembers when it (HK) mattered because Chinese population lived with the outhouses.

And how does that in any way imply that Hong Kong retaining its autonomy would force the Chinese people back to the outhouses?

Or is it just a matter of "we suffered, so they have to suffer"?

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#400

Post by notyourday »

danaris wrote: post #399
notyourday wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese population - not HK - remembers what it was to live with the outhouses. HK remembers when it (HK) mattered because Chinese population lived with the outhouses.

And how does that in any way imply that Hong Kong retaining its autonomy would force the Chinese people back to the outhouses? Or is it just a matter of "we suffered, so they have to suffer"?

It is different priorities.

Chinese population (by an overwhelming majority) views HK protesters as rich ungrateful bitches throwing a tempter tantrum.

HK population views mainland Chinese as the unwashed masses that are trying to take away what HK population thinks is rightfully theirs.

The numbers are not on the side of HK. The West is ought to understand that there's HK protesters do not have a winning hand, even with the support from the West.

Post reply on HN