31–40 of 105 posts
Title is clickbaity. They did it for a political protest during an official Blizzard tournament stream, not for actions on his own stream or something. He put on a gas mask and called for liberation of HK. I'm with him, but I definitely see why Blizzard has the rule in place, and it would not be right to overlook this - they would then have to be OK with others doing other protests. Blizzard should not pick a side.
[flagged]
"Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD [...]" That's pretty close to "Blizzard can remove you from Grandmasters as soon as you open your mouth". Sad to see such a cowardice from corporations, alth…
Isn't this basically the same with all big corporations these days? If you say unpopular things on your YouTube channel, you will be demonitized.as a way of punishment. In short, either you please big brother, or you will suffer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not picking a side is not allowing political discussion, no matter who you (or they) perceive to be right. Coincidentally, this is also the choice that makes most sense to a corporation which stands to lose a lot from picking a side. Players will likely respond to sensationalist reporting of this case, but forget about it soon after, while the Chinese government is not gonna go easy on Blizzard picking the other side…
But nearly every large company in America engages in political discussion when they talk about diversity, feminism, and inclusion. I think that's a good thing, but it's clearly not the case that these companies shy away from making progressive statements.
Also Tencent owns a portion of Activision Blizzard. That would be my guess for who is pulling the strings behind this specific incident.
They are implicitly making an example of this, thereby sending a political message.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not picking a side is not allowing political discussion, no matter who you (or they) perceive to be right. Coincidentally, this is also the choice that makes most sense to a corporation which stands to lose a lot from picking a side. Players will likely respond to sensationalist reporting of this case, but forget about it soon after, while the Chinese government is not gonna go easy on Blizzard picking the other side…
But nearly every large company in America engages in political discussion when they talk about diversity, feminism, and inclusion. I think that's a good thing, but it's clearly not the case that these companies shy away from making progressive statements.
Being protesters for freedom, they ironically did not respect another (unrelated) entity's freedom to choose.
"Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD [...]" That's pretty close to "Blizzard can remove you from Grandmasters as soon as you open your mouth". Sad to see such a cowardice from corporations, alth…
Isn't this basically the same with all big corporations these days? If you say unpopular things on your YouTube channel, you will be demonitized.as a way of punishment. In short, either you please big brother, or you will suffer.
OTOH who knows anymore, maybe big corporations do have something to do with it.... it's certainly convenient. If you have money it's rather easy to summon a mob to do your bidding and silence inconvenient people, so they must love this new trend. Also if you have money and power, it's easy to get discretionary, arbitrarily-enforced rules to not apply to you. All these new trends are so much more convenient than the old "due process" thing....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly how sports leagues operate, be they FIFA, the Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NBA... If you expect them to be the high water mark of social justice, you're going to be deeply disappointed. (Meanwhile, various tech firms have been criticized for picking a side, or allegedly picking a side in social conflicts over the past few years... Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently.)
[flagged]
But, ah, that former would be 'political', and 'picking a side', and 'controversial', because you see, ~half the country thinks (rightly or wrongly) that those things aren't a serious problem.
I leave considering what ~half of mainland China thinks (rightly or wrongly) about Hong Kong, and what we should do about widely held, but unjust political opinions as an exercise to the reader.