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

281–290 of 460 posts

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#281

Post by colordrops »

alasdair_ wrote: post #56
cjbprime wrote: post #10

The huge question here is what's going to happen at BlizzCon in two weeks. There'll be 40,000+ attendees, cameras everywhere, there are usually Q&A panels, homemade signs for player support, cosplay, everything. How can you host BlizzCon when you're terrified of political speech?

I, and several friends, all have tickets. We're still deciding what form of protest will be most effective (too overt and the message gets quickly lost when security kicks you out).

Organize online with others. If enough people protest together it would be a really bad look for Blizzard to kick them all out.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#282

Post by mensetmanusman »

alasdair_ wrote: post #206
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 "…

Karl Popper explained in detail why it’s perfectly rational to praise tolerance and still be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance “if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

Debunked

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#283

Post by jknoepfler »

falcolas wrote: post #229
jknoepfler wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> or blog That's exactly what this discussion is about - you're not free to start a blog. Running any form of web site on the internet requires the support of multiple private companies, which can and do shut sites down at their whims.

It requires exactly access to a DNS and an ISP, both of which do have an obligation to enable fair access.

Access to some blog-hosting SaSS is another issue entirely.

I'm content to provide my own stack from the server up. There is no realistic scenario where I can be deplatformed from purchasing hardware sufficient to host a blog.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#284

Post by DoreenMichele »

wbl wrote: post #252
DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't followed the situation closely, but we never get to A/B test such decisions. We make a decision and see the outcome for which one we chose. Saying they created this situation is a little like blaming a casualty of war for living in the country they were born in. China exists and it's a large country with growing power that has fundamental cultural differences with the West and always has. There may be bette…

This isn't a fundamental cultural difference. This is a tyranny that brokes no dissent and murders its people to stay in power.

I took History of The Far East in college decades ago. The cultural friction between China and the West substantially precedes the current government of the country.

Regardless of what is going on there politically currently, they are a growing economic power. That makes them the proverbial 800 pound gorilla that people are increasingly afraid of pissing off for fear of financial consequences. They have one seventh of the world's population. It's a huge market that simply cannot be ignored.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#285

Post by falcolas »

belltaco wrote: post #243
bitL wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, then voting with one's valet should be a good strategy to bring them back to their senses, unless they are 100% into some Chinese-friendly business ideology. Blizzard is off my list, I might re-evaulate in 1 year.

Funny that no one is talking about voting with their wallet by not buying Chinese products.

Some people are. But since this article is explicitly about Blizzard, people are focusing on their actions with Blizzard.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#286

Post by FooHentai »

hannasanarion wrote: post #184
uwuhn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The Chinese government didn't even threaten them over it.

Overtly. But this is a clear example of what is meant when people talk about the 'soft influence' which China seeks to develop. At the crude end of the scale, you have indoctrinated CCP people spreading out globally occupied in various positions able to exert leverage favorable to the party. At the more subtle end you have boards mindful of impacting their bottom line if they lose access to a large market.

What we're seeing here could be coming from either of those ends of the soft influence playbook. But no matter what, it's a clear example of the power of the approach, and how confounding it can become to resist it's effect.

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#287

Post by nyolfen »

esoterica wrote: post #250
echelon wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> demanding that companies be forced to produce anti-Chinese media against their economic interest. What? I never suggested this. > The first amendment protects people’s rights to shill for China in exchange for $$$. That’s what freedom of speech actually means. Right. And China discovered this fitness gradient. Luckily we can use taxes on negative externalities to adjust for the damage that is being done.

Taxing speech you don’t like is the exact opposite of being pro-free speech.

then i suppose it's a good thing he didn't suggest that

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#288

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #255
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…

> CloudFlare banned a site that was far, far outside the American political mainstream. Were this the 1950s during the Red Scare, people would have said the same thing, except the thing that would have been "far, far outside the American political mainstream" would've been Communists, leftists, pro-unionists, and other members of the political left. You know, the political wing you are a part of. Want to reconsider y…

> a swing to the right

Further than nazis?

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#289

Post by mintplant »

falcolas wrote: post #135
colllectorof wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you respond? A bit too late for that. Traditionally, reasonable companies preempted this kind of stuff by creating a clear separation between professional and personal matters, and not mixing the two. But hey, these days many people want companies to stick their nose into everyone's business, police "bad speech", create comfortable "spaces", enforce conduct and so on. Well, you reap what you sow. Any mechanism…

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.

So, what, as an LGBTQ+ person, I'm not allowed to be represented in media? Because my existence is "political"?

Re: Blizzard Cancels Overwatch Event

#290

Post by alasdair_ »

ican1 wrote: post #222
alasdair_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karl Popper explained in detail why it’s perfectly rational to praise tolerance and still be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance “if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

Karl Popper was talking about intolerance as in a group who resort to violent actions against another group (e.g. killing people for making cartoons). Merely expressing an opinion is never intolerance. Karl Popper, a lifelong supporter of free speech, must be turning over in his grave to know that his opinions are now being used to stifle speech. Also who gets to define who is intolerant? Chinese government will sure…

“In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

I completely agree that opposing views that can be argued against rationally should always be allowed. But we were talking about literal nazis who advocate (and act upon) VIOLENT intolerance.

Post reply on HN