←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 9 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
tomp ◴[08 Oct 19 11:17 UTC] No.21190973[source]▶
China is very smart. They saw what was happening in the West - oppression of freedom of speech on account of "hurt feelings" - and applied the same principles for their own nefarious purposes ("hurt Chinese feelings" a.k.a. political censorship).

Literally noone could have seen this coming. /s

edit: XCabbage better explains what I was trying to say. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191253

replies(6): >>21190990 #>>21191016 #>>21191065 #>>21191256 #>>21193157 #>>21193335 #
johnday ◴[08 Oct 19 11:19 UTC] No.21190990[source]▶
This is utter nonsense. Political censorship in the East is not a response to modern liberal views in the West.

That is so completely obvious that it boggles the mind that I even needed to say it.

replies(6): >>21191008 #>>21191010 #>>21191026 #>>21191054 #>>21191057 #>>21192915 #
tomp ◴[08 Oct 19 11:23 UTC] No.21191010[source]▶
Well thank God then that wasn't my argument.

What I'm saying is, China is co-opting modern liberal censorship in the West to do it's own political censorship (edit: in the West).

replies(4): >>21191024 #>>21191030 #>>21191063 #>>21191554 #
johnday ◴[08 Oct 19 11:25 UTC] No.21191030[source]▶
And no, they aren't. The two things may look superficially similar but Chinese political censorship is much, much older and the process but which it is done hasn't changed in a long time.
replies(3): >>21191067 #>>21191069 #>>21191253 #
bjornsing ◴[08 Oct 19 11:31 UTC] No.21191067{4}[source]▶
Ehh... But how old is enforcement of Chinese political censorship in the West?
replies(1): >>21191151 #
monocasa ◴[08 Oct 19 11:46 UTC] No.21191151{5}[source]▶
Blizzard is partially owned by a Chinese company. They're using money, not cancel culture.
replies(1): >>21191680 #
1. jessaustin ◴[08 Oct 19 12:53 UTC] No.21191680{6}[source]▶
Free speech was once valued in USA. In that context this wouldn't have happened. Now that freedom of speech is no longer valued, this sort of thing can happen.

Now I state for the record that I know these are the censorious actions of a private firm, not those of the USA federal government. It is of course possible to value speech outside a strict 1A framework. In previous decades, many Americans did so value free speech.

replies(2): >>21191812 #>>21193077 #
2. monocasa ◴[08 Oct 19 13:06 UTC] No.21191812[source]▶
No it wasn't. The same political sphere that's now complaining about how SJWs are ruining free speech had no problems black balling a large chunk of hollywood in the 50s for their private political speech.
replies(1): >>21192148 #
3. quotemstr ◴[08 Oct 19 13:39 UTC] No.21192148[source]▶
The people who regard 1950s Hollywood as an example of malfeasance are the same people who are currently doing the exact same thing to the text industry with the polarity reversed. They have no moral standing whatsoever to complain. If this weren't my industry, the hypocrisy would be hilarious.

As long as you get people fired from their jobs for having the wrong opinions about social issues in the US, you have no right to demand that companies not censor what the Chinese censors dislike. Now do you realize the value of free speech as a general principle?

replies(1): >>21193500 #
4. danso ◴[08 Oct 19 15:07 UTC] No.21193077[source]▶
Which era are you referring to? I remember Sinead O'Connor having her career eviscerated after she protested child abuse in the Catholic Church on SNL, so it couldn't be the 1990s. I'm assuming it's not the 2000s (Dixie Chicks, among others). So the 80s? The 70s?
5. monocasa ◴[08 Oct 19 15:43 UTC] No.21193500{3}[source]▶
Or... there's a difference between the government enforcing deplatforming, and people voting with their wallets and companies reading the political guide winds turning.

Unless you're saying that you have an issue with free association as well.

replies(1): >>21193749 #
6. quotemstr ◴[08 Oct 19 16:05 UTC] No.21193749{4}[source]▶
Blizzard is exercising its rights as a private company.
replies(1): >>21193852 #
7. monocasa ◴[08 Oct 19 16:14 UTC] No.21193852{5}[source]▶
Blizzard is owned partially by Tencent, which is owned by the Chinese government.
replies(1): >>21193932 #
8. quotemstr ◴[08 Oct 19 16:22 UTC] No.21193932{6}[source]▶
Tencent owns 12% of Blizzard, and Tencent is an actual company, not a Chinese government department. Sure, the Chinese government might influence Tencent, but to say that Blizzard's action here is government censorship is so ridiculous that it amounts to a blatant lie.

Is your argument so weak that you have to just lie?

replies(1): >>21194014 #
9. monocasa ◴[08 Oct 19 16:29 UTC] No.21194014{7}[source]▶
12% is more than enough to control a publicly traded company, because speculative shareholders don't typically vote.

The Chinese view of ownership is that the CCP ultimately owns everything. For instance there are no land deeds in China, just rental agreements from the party. Tencent, as one of the largest telecommunications companies in China is very much an adjunct of the CCP.

Don't accuse someone of lying just because you don't understand the underlying facts.