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

Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 460 posts

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#181

Post by PeterisP »

vbezhenar wrote: post #131
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

This is a crisis point for everyone who supports political free speech. Every corporation and business person is watching this to see which hurts their bottom line less, suppressing free speech globally, or angering China. As consumers, we must make sure that they get the message loud and clear that suppressing free speech globally on behalf of China is going to hurt their bottom line far more than China will. Otherw…

Is it considered acceptable to push your political agenda on an unrelated events? For me it looks strange and out of place. Now punishing people for that might be too harsh. But if every sport event will turn into political debates (imagine US and RU sportsmen arguing with each other), it'll be bad and free speech has nothing to do with it IMO.

It's a complicated issue. This historical event and all the differing opinions about it might be relevant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salu...

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#182

Post by saagarjha »

Latty wrote: post #136
cloakandswagger wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you completely, but this whole debacle has highlighted what seems to be hypocrisy in the general public's reaction to this. Remember when The Daily Stormer got kicked off CloudFlare and a whole host of other platforms, to the point that no one would take their business and they were effectively censored? The average take on that seemed to be a mix of "Free speech doesn't apply to private companies" and "…

The difference between neo-nazis and democratic protest? The difference is content. I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point. Yes, of course everyone should be able to express views individually, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the content of what is being said. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to the ability to ram that message down everyone's throat t…

> I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point.

What you're saying isn't free speech at all; it's supporting the right to express speech you agree with and being ok with views you don't being taken down. In particular, free speech isn't "the point" to you.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#183

Post by cjbprime »

belltaco wrote: post #154
ikiris wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everyone else in the room at the time was terminated. Which was the amazing part that totally destroyed any attempt at high ground.

Wrong, the casters were fired because they knew what was going to transpire and actively let it happen.

I don't think that's true, I believe the casters have said Blitzchung showed up on the live interview stream (it was remote) wearing the gas mask unexpectedly.

If someone is to cut him off and not let it happen, it's the job of the production crew. The job of the casters is to try to keep things entertaining and on the rails when the camera's live on them. It's not fair to punish casters for improvising a response.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#184

Post by hannasanarion »

uwuhn wrote: post #82
Dan_JiuJitsu wrote: post #58

I will never purchase another game from Activision or Blizzard unless they recant this backwards position. American art and media should not be subject to Chinese influence. I've been a loyal customer over the years, but I have a long memory. Refuse to delete my account if you will, it will never be used again.

First they came for the skeletons, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a skeleton.

For real though, changing character design for things like skeletons because it has a different meaning in another culture is a perfectly normal thing to do.

Changing characters to scrub them of LGBT characteristics that are illegal in another country is cowardly and should have caused a much bigger outrage than it did.

Banning players for supporting pro-democracy movements outside the game and retroactively seizing their winnings is horrific. Nothing about their rules says they had to do this, it was entirely at their discretion. The chinese government didn't even threaten them over it. They chose to make an example of Blitzchung within minutes of his statement. They went above and beyond to endear themselves to the CCP. If they want to win their reputation back, heads need to roll, and if that means the loss of the chinese market, too bad.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#185

Post by ican1 »

AlohaFractal wrote: post #175
mactrey wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CloudFlare banned a site that was far, far outside the American political mainstream. Blizzard banned a player for saying something that is completely within the American political mainstream, to the point that supporting Hong Kong is a rare bipartisan stance. When you go against the mainstream American stance to curry favor with an authoritarian regime that is also a current political enemy, well, that's kind of kic…

An important tenet of the American ideal of freedom of speech involves specifically protecting unpopular speech, allowing people to express minority viewpoints without fear of suppression by the majority. By this standard, Cloudflare's censorship of TDS is far less defensible that Blizzard's censorship of blitzchung. Saying that speech within the mainstream should be allowed and speech outside the mainstream should n…

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, often misattributed to Voltaire.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#186

Post by wruza »

vbezhenar wrote: post #139
cloakandswagger wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both situations feature people being banned by companies due to their speech because the companies fear backlash from more powerful entities (China or the media/general public respectively). They seem pretty comparable to me.

It's called double-standards. It's OK to cut free speech for those you don't like, it's not OK to cut free speech for those you like.

First they came for the right-wing neo-nazis, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a right-wing neo-nazi.

Wonder where this goes this time.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#187

Post by apostacy »

omegaworks wrote: post #171
falcolas wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted, since the two incidents are fundamentally about free speech (I have a post attached to a sibling that explains why I think this applies to private companies too). That one form of speech is detested while the other is supported doesn't change that it's fundamentally about free speech. To be slightly hyperbolic, it's impossible to say something of substance that doesn't offend someone. If all we're allowe…

The intent of the founders was to ensure that citizens and journalists could speak out against their government without fear of retribution by the state. The "anything ought to be fine to say anywhere without consequence" interpretation is a modern phenomenon that extremists have used to platform and normalize violent suppressive rhetoric.

That is a horrible mischaracterization of free speech.

The first telegraph network banned journalists who reported bad things against the telegraph company. They manipulated stock prices and influenced elections. That is why common carriage laws were made, which required communications platforms to provide neutral service to everyone.

I'm sure that you would have been there, bravely defending the coal barons right to shut down journalists trying to report on union organizing, because they are a private corporation and they can do whatever they want on their property and not answer to anyone. You would have screamed "muh freeze peach" at journalists trying to report about labor abuses. Because they are not entitled to use the private telegraph network.

Of course the line between ubiquitous large platform and government is blurry. That is why communications companies over a certain side must be forced to platform everyone, and can only be permitted to ban them when they have met certain criteria.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#188

Post by Kaveren »

dpratt wrote: post #160
falcolas wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps not cleanly stated, but true. Blizzard quite explicitly catered to the LGBTQ+ demographic recently via an Overwatch promotion, a move that can easily be construed as political speech (and which was voluntarily censored by Blizzard in Russia and China). They stuck their feet into this arena, and are now realizing that making political statement can affect their revenue in both directions.

The fact that they voluntarily censored it in Russia and China is essentially definitive proof that they don’t actually care about the issue, but rather think it will gain them more money in the US. If they cared, they would have required that China and Russia be the bad guy and force them, but they’d clearly prefer to take the path of least resistance.

They can care about the issue and still be greedy and care about money way more. The issue with letting governments "force" things like that is that they might just ban the game entirely and forever.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#189

Post by ditonal »

Latty wrote: post #136
cloakandswagger wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you completely, but this whole debacle has highlighted what seems to be hypocrisy in the general public's reaction to this. Remember when The Daily Stormer got kicked off CloudFlare and a whole host of other platforms, to the point that no one would take their business and they were effectively censored? The average take on that seemed to be a mix of "Free speech doesn't apply to private companies" and "…

The difference between neo-nazis and democratic protest? The difference is content. I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point. Yes, of course everyone should be able to express views individually, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the content of what is being said. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to the ability to ram that message down everyone's throat t…

I understand how people arrive at this position, but it's not a free speech position. You can't be pro free speech as long as you agree with it, that undermines the entire concept. You can't be pro free speech, as long as there are horrible consequences for free speech you don't agree with. If right-wing extremism and other factors are making people re-think the value of free speech, fine, there are plenty of compelling points to make about the dangers and downsides of free speech, but enough of the mental gymnastics where people convince themselves they're still pro free-speech when they are very clearly against the concept.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#190

Post by stordoff »

humble_engineer wrote: post #29

I'm so sick and tired of seeing a company silence free speech, but then as soon as someone doesn't agree with what is being said, the answer is, "but they are a private business." Have some god damn principles, either you support free speech, or you don't, it doesn't matter what is being said, imbeciles.

They are a private business means there is not legal impediment to what they are doing. They are free to do this all day long. That doesn't mean as an individual I have to support them. There's no contradiction between saying there are free to do this, but I don't support it, or being against this but allowing some other actions to that shut down some categories of free speech. Not everyone believes in a blanket right to all speech in all situations.
Post reply on HN