Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

playhearthstone.com

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#751
post #723
post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL suspended Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem. That's mild compared hijacking a speech with a gasmask and calling for revolution.

Kaepernick was not suspended by the NFL at any point during the anthem protests. Neither was he fined. There is nothing in the NFL rulebook about what you should do during the anthem. Kaepernick suspects that his activism is the reason no team has signed him since he became a free agent. And he may be right. But he was not fired, suspended, or in any way punished officially for what he did.

Fair enough. I don't really follow football. I still think that he would have been suspended if he put on a black panther beret and called for a revolution.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#752
post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is tricky. I always thought they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so they have to tread that line as well. Does anyone know how that fits into the picture?

American companies have American customers, investors, and employees too. And European, Canadian, Aussie, etc. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/nba-china-hong-k... Corporations have a strong incentive not to piss off the rest of the world to serve one country. They've been able to get away with it for a while but the demands from China will naturally keep growing and growing (as all censorship does once yo…

Thanks to the tremendous criminality and wealth concentration of the last 200 years, western corps generally only answered to western wealthy audiences. The game has changed, that's all....

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#753
post #710
post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you oppose firing of James Damore as well? Look I understand that we need to have free expression and free speech. Absolutely. But a business wants to protect itself from negative political reputation. If the gamer was talking about say LGBT rights, and his opinions were considered against the current acceptable position on the matter, and then he was banned, I am sure everyone would have applauded blizzard. Le…

Yeah, it's a tricky situation. This could be dismissed with the phrase "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" that gets bandied about when certain people get deplatformed. By going after Blizzard for suspending this guy for his speech, you're saying that you care more about the targets than the action. That certain actions are ok as long as we're hurting the right people. So that's what they actu…

FWIW worth, I have limited knowledge of gaming communities. Most of my concern have been with behavior of twitter when it comes to policing content, specially anti-Islam content which violates blasphemy laws in certain countries like Pakistan. For long time I was of the opinion that twitter is wrong in the way it bans people or removes content which violates these laws. And that twitter should stop operating in those countries instead. Since then I have changed my views about this. I think twitter as a company has every right to operate where ever it pleases and if it means adhering to local laws, so be it.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#754

A lot of comments here seem to take as a given that banning any offensive speech in any forum leads inexorably to situations like this, where the "offensive speech" is political speech offensive to an authoritarian government. But this implies that it's impossible to distinguish between different kinds of "offensive" speech based on any meaningful criteria whatsoever, and this just seems to be fundamentally incorrect…

To understand the issue (and any issue for that matter) I think it's important to make an effort to try to see things from perspectives outside your own frame of reference. There are 1.4 billion Chinese, the vast majority of whom see what we frame as democratic protests, as unlawful acts of arbitrary destruction and now increasingly often - violence as well. And they too are framing the violence as increasingly racial/cultural. For instance mainlanders tend to speak Mandarin. Hong Kongers tend to speak Cantonese. Guess whose property is getting disproportionately destroyed. And as these protests are turning increasingly violent, it's easy to see where that is and will continue to be focused as well.

Even within Hong Kong there seems to be no reliable information available on aggregate views. The only poll I can find, potentially of dubious reliability, is from 2016. [1] And in that poll, the vast majority of those living within Hong Kong were against separating from China once the 'one country, two systems' agreement expires, in 2047. Only 17.4% supported independence from China even when it was just in theory and 2 decades away. What percent of the protesters are within that 17.4%, and what are the views of the 82.6% on these protests? These seem like important questions that are going unasked, let alone answered by our media and reporting. Whatever the exact numbers may be, there are a lot of people who are very much against whatever you want to call what is happening in Hong Kong. This isn't just a scenario of "good guys" vs "authoritarian government." Its large groups of people who feel very different about the same situation.

Of course you will reference propaganda and I fully agree with you. But there too I am left to wonder something. Take the average Chinese who relies on his regular sources of information for news. And now take the average American who similarly relies on his regular sources of news for information. Who would be able to provide a more accurate response to factual queries on the protests, Hong Kong's relationship with China, and the views/values/etc of those within and without the protest group? Similarly, do you think that, for instance, the New York Times has provided accurate and objective reporting on this topic? Or do you think that their reporting and presentation is attempting to present this story from a distinctly prejudiced angle?

Something that I think social media has masked for many people today is that our own views are not "THE" moral imperative for the world. In fact they, regardless of what they are, tend to be quite obscure when contrasted against the world at large. Step outside the anglosphere and it's amazing how insane we are starting to look from the outside. Or perhaps we always looked this way, but by living inside the bubble for so many years I was equally a part of the insanity.

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-survey-idU...

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#755

A lot of comments here seem to take as a given that banning any offensive speech in any forum leads inexorably to situations like this, where the "offensive speech" is political speech offensive to an authoritarian government. But this implies that it's impossible to distinguish between different kinds of "offensive" speech based on any meaningful criteria whatsoever, and this just seems to be fundamentally incorrect…

"The Most Intolerant Wins" > Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” > We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world. > So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. [0] https://medium.com/incerto…

It seems that without the article's context, these are controversial points. The word 'minority' here is used to describe a group of people bound by their ideas and opinions.

The minority rule states that the opinions of a few can be projected onto a whole through an emergent property. If a few people do not like to eat spicy food, the whole office might cater mild or bland for an event. An outsider would think that the entire office dislikes spicy food.

If there is a small group of people who think that expressing certain ideas is incorrect, then an entire group might avoid speaking them.

A free society needs to make constant, conscious decisions about what ideas cannot be expressed, because if smaller groups are allowed to make these decisions without review, then all free speech will dry up in a real way.

We should always argue when some group says they don't like hearing certain things. The fact that we are often arguing is a sign of good health for free speech.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#756
post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you oppose firing of James Damore as well? Look I understand that we need to have free expression and free speech. Absolutely. But a business wants to protect itself from negative political reputation. If the gamer was talking about say LGBT rights, and his opinions were considered against the current acceptable position on the matter, and then he was banned, I am sure everyone would have applauded blizzard. Le…

> Let us not put burden of being politically correct on free market corporations. They seem to have picked up the torch themselves on this one.

There rule specifies that offensive speech is something that is not allowed. I assumed that same rule will apply to all kinds of offensive speech, including the hong kong related comment. I, for one, dont want people to use platform likes those to spew say homophobic comments. If that means they have deal with all such comments which may be deemed offensive have to be banned, so be it.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not giving them a red cent. They can be anti-democratic on someone else's dime.

You not giving them money wont hit their bottomline. However, you blaming them online and amplifying other people doing so is more likely to make them feel bad about it.

i wish people would stop trotting out this cynical nonsense: it's the same tired argument that people use about why they don't vote (because "it doesn't matter").

it does matter. it might not matter very much, but it does matter. it changes the amount of money the company receives. that cannot be argued against.

more importantly, it also empowers others who may be open to the idea to do the same. it can spread the idea that "hey, yeah, i don't need to patronize this company". if enough people do this, change can be enacted. see loot boxes, or consuming less junk, or .....

if however this cynicism causes people to stay home on election day, or do nothing in their lives bc everything is inevitably status quo, or keep patronizing companies like this, then nothing will ever change.

so please keep this factual inaccuracy out of discussions like these: it's not productive and demonstrably false, and arguably harmful to contributing to "wokeness" generally.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#759
post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is tricky. I always thought they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so they have to tread that line as well. Does anyone know how that fits into the picture?

American companies have American customers, investors, and employees too. And European, Canadian, Aussie, etc. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/nba-china-hong-k... Corporations have a strong incentive not to piss off the rest of the world to serve one country. They've been able to get away with it for a while but the demands from China will naturally keep growing and growing (as all censorship does once yo…

There is no such thing as an American company, if you're an American and you start a business and build it up then decide to retire and sell it off, it isn't guaranteed (and is actually rather unlikely) that all the production and business will stay in the US. People are American - not corporations.
Post reply on HN