391–400 of 460 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will just refuse entry. Wearing a MAGA shirt or hat, or a tshirt with various profanities is also freedom of expression, but is routinely banned in many private events including airports. Edit: You can be banned from airlines since they are privately owned, but not airports since they are publicly owned.
In the US? I would be very surprised post Cohen v. California.
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…
I agree with most of what you say, but as a Dane who grew up watching Hollywood movies portraying America, it’s also a little funny for this particular part, to be happening to America.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather be manipulated into liking a free society than a dictatorship, but I’m sure you follow where I’m going with this comment.
Mark Kern (ex-lead WoW dev, and dev for Starcraft/Warcraft/Diablo 2) posted a good analysis of Blizzard's statement on Blitzchung. https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1183215204525412352?ref_sr...
FYI, for folks who aren't familiar, Mark Kern's history also includes full throated support of GamerGate and being removed from a CEO role at Red 5 by the board of directors. (Allegedly for erratic and disruptive behavior.) It's been a really, really wild ride seeing lefty twitter and righty twitter hold hands and agree that Blizzard did the wrong thing. (Though for different reasons.)
No idea if he legit supports democracy in Hong Kong, but his HK tweets:
* Show primary evidence of Netease (Blizzard China) directly contradicting Blizzard’s US press release
* Cite where in the Hearthstone rules Blizzard illegitimately chose warrant for their action (the rules prohibit making Blizzard look bad in the public eye, not unknowingly disgruntling Chinese investors)
* Give context to dispel any benefit of the doubt for Blizzard and how its execs operate
Perhaps the man is an axe murderer... useful context, but at the end of the day there’s (for better or worse) useful substance in his message
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly in many places it still is political isn't it? Like Russia, China, Utah... Since homophobic bigots run the places and think it's ok to oppress things they aren't comfortable with...
You name two countries and then an obscure state. What's the deal with Utah?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of the blizzard related subreddits are staffed by mods that remove posts about China. And when you post something in /r/wow you see a big "no politics" banner. Not seeing that many posts about this there means nothing about how the players feel. And reddit in general was up in arms about this.
There was a bigger outrage about EA during the lootbox fiasco. The most downvoted post in Reddit history belongs to an EA representative. EA doesn't seem to have suffered.
Semi-political outrage can not destroy a gaming company (not until politicians carry on). Each year there are new 10-year old kids going into stores/the first time onto Steam and buy something flashy they want to play. And in countries like Germany a third of the population plays games. Those buyers are not unified politically nor culturally.
But: If the opinion that a company does harm to gamers or people in general becomes prevalent, that's a huge danger for the company in the long run. It dampens its success, how their marketing is received, what they can do and what they can say. They lose access to the core group. Stuff like this is important enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You reckon they'd have banned him if he'd worn a Elizabeth Warren campaign badge? Really? Like...that's a thing you honestly can imagine?
Yes, because if unpunished, in the next game that will cause another player to wear a MAGA hat. And another to wear a shirt saying "ICE is just doing it's job". They cannot punish those guys because it will make them look biased. And it's all downhill from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what, as an LGBTQ+ person, I'm not allowed to be represented in media? Because my existence is "political"?
I think the problem is like this: Blizzard creates art/items/events specifically catering to LGBTQ, with the concept that in modern western countries this is not a controversial stance but the only decent stance. Then, at an event, a tournament winner is given a chance to speak and calls for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. Blizzard's response to this is ban him, take his prize away, ban the tournament casters for…
This [1] is the entire, in context, video of the controversy in question. Unfortunately I've yet to find a complete translated transcript so I am left on relying on potentially unreliable online translations. From what I've read the casters say 'Go ahead and say those 8 words and we'll wrap up here. There's nothing else to talk about. Let's lower our heads.' He then screams 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time.' Guess that's 8 words in [presumably?] Cantonese. This was done while wearing a gas mask. The tournament casters then laugh and clap.
This is actually the thing that most frustrates me about so many issues. How can people justify forming opinions on these things without seeing everything in context? Why isn't this entire video, alongside a professional translation, a part of every story on the topic? Of course providing in context video gets downvoted, because it makes the issues look less black and white. But that to me is the clearest example of idiocracy. We should not seek to create Hollywood villains and heroes in nuanced issues. We should consider these issues as they are, which invariably tend to be a million shades of gray as opposed to black and white.
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…
The US government routinely practices Extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Anyone living abroad who was born in the US, currently holds US citizenship, or was at one point a "US person" to the IRS has to deal with financial institutions refusing to do business with them because of FACTA. [1]
The US has also been known pressure American companies to disclose data held abroad on foreign citizens. [2]
Recently the wife of a US diplomat killed a UK citizen in a road accident and fled back to the US while claiming diplomatic immunity. [3]
Yes, these examples are not of the US state entities or US corporations overtly using their financial interests to influence corporate policy abroad, but the US is hardly a model citizen when it comes to this claim.
I'd like to see more of every country (US, UK, China, Russia, etc) stop trying to "control society outside of its own walls" but this trend seems unlikely to change any time soon.
[1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0e331f25-4e8a...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...
[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/06/uk/us-diplomat-wife-intl-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
If it's just a blog couldn't you host it on a home internet connection using an ip address? I doubt ISPs would easily cut someone's home internet off. Is there precedent for that?
2. Some ISPs (possibly overlapping 1. or not) explicitly disallow hosting of any service on their Internet plans that they categorize for home use in their Terms of Service.