261–270 of 460 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese version of the Blizzard statement was different: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/10/verified-chinese-bli... It included we will defend the honor of the nation, making it clear exactly what he did wrong.
Posted not by Blizzard but by Net-Ease, a Chinese company that isn't owned by Blizzard.
If blizzard thinks that they said something wrong, then the burden is on blizzard to correct the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you respond when a character from your top grossing game is turned into a political meme? This is what Blizzard has been learning this week. How do you handle potentially thousands of attendees, at your organization's biggest annual event, turning it into a platform for political protest agaisnt your biggest growing market? There's three possible events: BlizzCon is canceled. Extremely unlikely but possible. B…
I'd say that video games will be the next social media (if they aren't already). When they created Twitters and Facebooks, they've never imagined that one day their platform will be a highly politicized. Similarly, people haven't imagined that video games are used for politics, but in the end every platform is going to be political. I wouldn't say it's something they have "created" (as others pointed out already), bu…
Currently r/AskReddit is still relatively free, HN is also mostly free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a crisis point for everyone who supports political free speech. It’s a crisis created by the political movement to force every company to take a political stance on every issue, and to force companies to not associate with political out-group members. I’m sure it feels really good when you’re in the in-group, but quite obviously gets people really worked up when it doesn’t come down on their side.
A neutral political stance would be to do nothing and ignore the "incident". Blizzard took explicit action and chose a side.
None of this would have ever been a problem if there wasn’t an enormous political movement to force these politics into every corner of society. Now you simply have a situation where a lot of the same people who were proponents of this practice are unhappy, simply because they’ve found themselves in the out-group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to the union organizers who were killed because of those reports. So no, the line isn't that clear. It's worth remembering that at that point in time, the anti-union faction was strong and brutally violent.
You're talking about a totally separate thing here. Death threats are still not the same as reporting intended to expose organizers personally and potentially make them more likely to experience violent retribution. The issue you're grappling with is something that has no clear cut answer, namely: the question of whether doxxing is ever appropriate, and which major publications still face intense heat over. https://w…
We in the modern US simply do not have a frame of reference for how brutal these activities were. Being outed as a union contributor in many cases was equivalent to a death sentence. A small excerpt from when a union activity was "doxxed" to the union busters:
>>> More than 200 vigilantes or "citizen deputies", under the ostensible authority of Snohomish County Sheriff McRae, met in order to repel the "anarchists." As the Verona drew into the dock, and someone on board threw a line over a bollard, McRae stepped forward and called out "Boys, who's your leader?" The IWW men laughed and jeered, replying "We're all leaders," and they started to swing out the gang plank. McRae drew his pistol, told them he was the sheriff, he was enforcing the law, and they couldn't land here. There was a silence, then a Wobbly came up to the front and yelled out "the hell we can't."[4]
Just then a single shot rang out, followed by about ten minutes of intense gunfire. Most of it came from the vigilantes on the dock, but some fire came from the Verona, although the majority of the passengers were unarmed.[5] Whether the first shot came from boat or dock was never determined. Passengers aboard the Verona rushed to the opposite side of the ship, nearly capsizing the vessel. The ship's rail broke as a result and a number of passengers were ejected into the water, some drowned as a result but how many is not known, or whether persons who'd been shot also went overboard.[6] Over 175 bullets pierced the pilot house alone, and the captain of the Verona, Chance Wiman, was only able to avoid being shot by ducking behind the ship's safe.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>I believe the casters have said Blitzchung showed up on the live interview stream (it was remote) wearing the gas mask unexpectedly. Nah that's wrong. Have you watched the live feed video? Here's a translation of what was said by the casters. https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/dfs7a... So many mistruths being spread and believed as facts, it's sad really.
I'm saying that the casters didn't know before the interview started that Blitzchung would wear a gas mask to it.
You're saying that during the interview they encouraged him. That's true. But a caster doesn't have many other options at that point, their main job is to keep things genial and entertaining. They are not the production team, who could have cut away from the interview at any time -- even before the casters started responding. The blame goes to production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Insofar as radio frequencies, internet domains, cable infrastructure and the like are effectively government induced oligolpolies, they are protected media as well. In general though, yes, you have no right to have a particular editorial published in the new york times on your behalf. What the press deigns to publish is protected. You're also free to start your own paper, or blog, or whatever.
NO, you really aren't free to do that.
If every means of communication is in private hands, and access is denied to you, then you effectively have no free speech.
I am really depressed by the radical libertarian corporatism here on HN.
If an oil company brought all the land around your house, and put up a wall on all sides, and refused to let you leave, I feel like people here would defend that. Because you are not entitled to be on other people's private property or what ever. And it was your fault for living in the center of the land they brought, and no freedom from consequences.
And the first mediums of mass communication were 100% private, so to reiterate what I said before, everyone should be cool with them systematically excluding people they consider to be "nazis". To them, union organizers and journalists are a dangerous threat to public order...
Shut up journalist, you are not entitled to use their private telegraphs that were subsidized by the government. You were banned because of your hateful speech against our corporation. No freedom from consequences, loser. Go whine about muh freeze peach elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NFL never took Colin's entire NFL earnings away from him on top of firing anyone commenting on the initial sitting. I'm pretty sure if they did this, there would be much more uproar than letting him do it and quietly not signing him onto any more teams.
He also didn't start talking about police brutality against African Americans in post game interviews to the media, IIRC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish protesting against Blizzard would have an impact on Chinese policy but there's zero chance of that happening. I understand it's a long game (no pun intended), getting more and more companies to take a stand for free speech, but the impact on the lives of the people really affected by it is too small. The US government has much greater means to make a really powerful impact but I don't see that ever happening.
The goal is not to change chinese policy, it's to change the policy of how american business interact with chinese policy. I don't care nearly as much about how china is a draconian hellhole as I do about that hellhole infecting how american business do shit.
It just depresses me that, in the name of trade and the perspective of China being some #1 global power, governments everywhere will turn a blind eye to the human rights violations.
We need to impose an 80% repatriation tax on any profits earned in China in order to offset the damages done to our domestic freedom of speech. China should not be able to control society outside of its own walls, yet they have blatantly influenced the behavior of our biggest mass media companies for years. To be fair, they've done an outstanding job of it. They fund a huge number of film productions. They've bought…
> Tax any and all domestic profits coming from China. What would you do if there are no actual profits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting