71–80 of 179 posts
Maybe I just want blood but it feels pretty unsatisfying.
Ellen Pao (former Reddit CEO): "Tech companies: We tolerate harassment and hate so we can enable political dissent, public squares, free speech Also tech companies: Censor the Hong Kong protestors and kill all their communication channels" https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1182710608887611394?s=21
Didn’t she ban a lot of subreddits?
From all the subreddits that were closed, I’d be hard-pressed to name one that I felt contributed to free speech.
My own take throughout the whole thing is similar to Brian Kibler's [1]. To me, even though it made sense that Blizzard wanted to stay neutral, the punishment was too severe for all of the people involved (zero prize money, 1 year ban) so it's nice that at least one of them was reverted. [1]: http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/ Sidenote, Linus is reading the statement on the WAN show and he mentioned that B…
Dunno about version 3 or later, but in the classic system ‘lawful’ means adhering to strict principles and ‘evil’ means selfish with disregard to others. So I'm pretty sure Blizzard is either chaotic or neutral, what with it trying to appease both sides at once. And probably neutral on the good-evil axis, since it passably honestly trades its games for the money.
I wonder if protesters supporting Catalonia, Cuba, Venezuela, Kashmir, Sudan, Indonesia, or Palestine did this, if it would get more attention than a single article or thread?
Heck, 100 people have been killed in the current Iraq protests and there are less articles and outrage compared to this. Maybe future protests will focus on getting punishments from large companies? Perhaps this is the start of a new type of activism.
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision. Needless to say, this line has generated a very large amount of snark on social media.
I don't see any way they could have addressed that without the hysteria still spinning it negatively. Because it's not like they mention that out of nowhere: They are directly referring to accusations that they were pressured into shutting that particular player down by the Chinese government. There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any answer contradicting that narrative. Heck, even if…
I do give points to Blizzard for the amount of Orwellian doublespeak here. They were just compelled to punish and deplatform because of their values of "Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters!" Certainly nothing political about that!
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision. Needless to say, this line has generated a very large amount of snark on social media.
I don't see any way they could have addressed that without the hysteria still spinning it negatively. Because it's not like they mention that out of nowhere: They are directly referring to accusations that they were pressured into shutting that particular player down by the Chinese government. There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any answer contradicting that narrative. Heck, even if…
No.
There are two fan axes here: agreement and respect.
Companies (and your comment) seem to focus on the former, while being completely oblivious to the latter.
If Blizzard had said "Our Chinese economic interests pressured us into doing this" they would have faced intense disagreement.
But, they would have retained as least a modicum of respect.
Instead, they forfeited both.
And really? Putting out equivocal PR fluff in response to an issue in 2019? Activision-Blizzard's entire Communications department should be sacked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are. Saying any of those words and they would have upset their Chinese fans, and then they would have two holes. I think Blizzard’s post is more than fair. Both the player and announcers knowingly broke the rules. I’ll continue to play their games.
> I’ll continue to play their games. Literally the first time I've seen this sentiment since the start of this debacle. Telling that it's not from a real account.
It’s extremely irresponsible for blizzard to host a massive platform for speech and pretend that platform exists in a vacuum outside of current events. (Read: politics.) In the same way that public platforms are dangerous when used for hate speech, they’re also dangerous when those advocating for positive change are banned from them. Whatever Blizzard set out to do, it’s exceptionally naive not to acknowledge that de…
FIFA also bans politics from its platform.
Question for all of y'all: what would happen if an Olympic athlete expressed or signalled a strong political view (beyond just "my country good, your country bad") during an official Olympic ceremony?
Sanctions are typically adapted: symbolic at most for something unsurprising (a Black athlete campaigning for racial equality, an athlete defending a popular political movement in their home country) and stronger for something heinous (a football made Nazi references).
Wish bigwigs would keep it brief and to the point. This was all I need to hear: > official broadcasts [should] remain focused on the game and are not a > platform for divisive social or political views. Same goes with NFL and the kneeling. Just say "hey, we're a business" and leave it at that. Hate all the moralizing.