IGN Takes Down Article and Tweet Sharing Palestinian Aid Groups(kotaku.com)
kotaku.com
IGN Takes Down Article and Tweet Sharing Palestinian Aid Groups
https://kotaku.com/ign-takes-down-article-and-tweet-sharing-palestinian-ai-1846905689
17 comments
This is sad to see. I think everyone deserves a explanation. In the past various groups have raised money when there are humanitarian catastrophes. Why not this one?
I really wish the people who self-identify as free speech advocates (and especially the people who point out - correctly - that it doesn't matter that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporate/social censorship, those forms of censorship are bad too) would speak out about this. There's an incredible amount of pressure not to say anything that can be construed as anti-Israel in any way.
Worse, the IGN article wasn't anti-Israel under any reasonable definition. It simply linked to charities aiding Palestinian civilians. Even if you wholly believe Israel's version of the story and believe they're in the right, that Hamas is hiding weaponry in civilian buildings and so those buildings need to be targeted, what insult is it to Israel to aid those innocent civilian victims?
Worse, the IGN article wasn't anti-Israel under any reasonable definition. It simply linked to charities aiding Palestinian civilians. Even if you wholly believe Israel's version of the story and believe they're in the right, that Hamas is hiding weaponry in civilian buildings and so those buildings need to be targeted, what insult is it to Israel to aid those innocent civilian victims?
> "I really wish the people who self-identify as free speech advocates would speak out about this."
It's the other way around, really. Why aren't the progressives acknowledging that this is the dark side of "corporations aren't required to host speech they don't want to" which we have heard all too often on HN? They knew full well (or darned well should have) that corporations care about PR and profits, not progressivism or social justice, and that the people who run them have their own agendas. They rejected the importance of freedom of speech, denied the possibility for neutrality in political issues, and sneered at liberals who tried to remind them of the consequences.
Why are we being asked to rescue progressives from their own folly? They've never been shy about activism; let's see if they truly have the influence they claim to wield.
It's the other way around, really. Why aren't the progressives acknowledging that this is the dark side of "corporations aren't required to host speech they don't want to" which we have heard all too often on HN? They knew full well (or darned well should have) that corporations care about PR and profits, not progressivism or social justice, and that the people who run them have their own agendas. They rejected the importance of freedom of speech, denied the possibility for neutrality in political issues, and sneered at liberals who tried to remind them of the consequences.
Why are we being asked to rescue progressives from their own folly? They've never been shy about activism; let's see if they truly have the influence they claim to wield.
As an anti-free-speech progressive, I'll give you an answer: it's not the dark side of that proposition. It's the dark side of assuming that it's possible to trust corporations to be fair about free speech at all.
The only reason there was a hue and cry about corporate censorship of, say, Donald Trump was that Donald Trump's ideas were extremely popular and a lot of people had already heard it, and the people who wanted to hear it have significant (though not absolute) political power.
There are people with nowhere near as much political power who get censored, and the same folks cheer it on. A few years before the recent debate, the corporations all stopped hosting the free speech of sex workers, and nobody from any party cared, and nobody even thought of mentioning it during the more recent debate. The problem is that "free speech" got redefined. The words of the president of the US were within the pale; the words of sex workers were not. Which of those was actually at risk in the marketplace of ideas?
It's abundantly clear that saying that corporations are required to host speech they want to will simply require them to host certain politically-correct types of speech that the government recognizes as "free speech".
We're deeply familiar with censorship on the left. We experienced the House Un-American Activities Committee. To this day, you cannot become a naturalized American citizen if you have been publishing or circulating "written or printed matter advocating communism." Why should we believe that supporters of "free speech" are advocating for anything other than the legal right to force people to publish their own speech?
Show me a free speech advocate who is arguing for the repeal of FOSTA/SESTA, the repeal of the anti-Communist provisions in US naturalization law, the repeal of gag rules preventing pediatricians giving their honest medical opinion or obligations for gynecologists to say things they don't believe, or relevant to this thread, the various anti-BDS legislation that's been passed recently, and then we'll talk.
The only reason there was a hue and cry about corporate censorship of, say, Donald Trump was that Donald Trump's ideas were extremely popular and a lot of people had already heard it, and the people who wanted to hear it have significant (though not absolute) political power.
There are people with nowhere near as much political power who get censored, and the same folks cheer it on. A few years before the recent debate, the corporations all stopped hosting the free speech of sex workers, and nobody from any party cared, and nobody even thought of mentioning it during the more recent debate. The problem is that "free speech" got redefined. The words of the president of the US were within the pale; the words of sex workers were not. Which of those was actually at risk in the marketplace of ideas?
It's abundantly clear that saying that corporations are required to host speech they want to will simply require them to host certain politically-correct types of speech that the government recognizes as "free speech".
We're deeply familiar with censorship on the left. We experienced the House Un-American Activities Committee. To this day, you cannot become a naturalized American citizen if you have been publishing or circulating "written or printed matter advocating communism." Why should we believe that supporters of "free speech" are advocating for anything other than the legal right to force people to publish their own speech?
Show me a free speech advocate who is arguing for the repeal of FOSTA/SESTA, the repeal of the anti-Communist provisions in US naturalization law, the repeal of gag rules preventing pediatricians giving their honest medical opinion or obligations for gynecologists to say things they don't believe, or relevant to this thread, the various anti-BDS legislation that's been passed recently, and then we'll talk.
> "Why should we believe that supporters of "free speech" are advocating for anything other than the legal right to force people to publish their own speech?"
It's kind of amusing to see the progressives automatically assume anybody defending free speech is part of the right; they're so caught up in the "you're either with us or against us" mentality they haven't figured out that liberals and the center are taking them up on the latter.
Yes, the conservatives want to force publication of speech they support and the progressives want to suppress publication of speech they disfavor; six of one, half a dozen of the other and I have no love for either side. Personally, I'd like to see the FCC's fairness doctrine re-instated and the social media giants broken up and heavily regulated so that both conservative and progressive extremism is blunted (and hopefully Fox News killed for good).
> "Show me a free speech advocate who is arguing for the repeal of FOSTA/SESTA, the repeal of the anti-Communist provisions in US naturalization law, the repeal of gag rules preventing pediatricians giving their honest medical opinion or obligations for gynecologists to say things they don't believe, or relevant to this thread, the various anti-BDS legislation that's been passed recently, and then we'll talk."
I'm a pro-free speech, anti-progressive liberal and all of the things you list are, in my view, both contrary to the First Amendment protections and violate the principles of freedom of speech. But we were talking about private corporations, who aren't subject to the First Amendment, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
It's kind of amusing to see the progressives automatically assume anybody defending free speech is part of the right; they're so caught up in the "you're either with us or against us" mentality they haven't figured out that liberals and the center are taking them up on the latter.
Yes, the conservatives want to force publication of speech they support and the progressives want to suppress publication of speech they disfavor; six of one, half a dozen of the other and I have no love for either side. Personally, I'd like to see the FCC's fairness doctrine re-instated and the social media giants broken up and heavily regulated so that both conservative and progressive extremism is blunted (and hopefully Fox News killed for good).
> "Show me a free speech advocate who is arguing for the repeal of FOSTA/SESTA, the repeal of the anti-Communist provisions in US naturalization law, the repeal of gag rules preventing pediatricians giving their honest medical opinion or obligations for gynecologists to say things they don't believe, or relevant to this thread, the various anti-BDS legislation that's been passed recently, and then we'll talk."
I'm a pro-free speech, anti-progressive liberal and all of the things you list are, in my view, both contrary to the First Amendment protections and violate the principles of freedom of speech. But we were talking about private corporations, who aren't subject to the First Amendment, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
IGN is a video game news website. Not everything needs to focus on the political issues of the time. Video games offer a great way to escape, and seems to be a perfect example of an industry that does best when ignoring such issues.
Just like this site. dang often mentions how certain topics or forms of communication shouldn't be discussed here not because they're unimportant, but because they're not the focus of this site.
Just like this site. dang often mentions how certain topics or forms of communication shouldn't be discussed here not because they're unimportant, but because they're not the focus of this site.
How odd, then, that the IGN staff decided to post this article without coming to that realization, and then suddenly came to that realization after an unrelated post by IGN Israel who was very offended at this attack on Israel.
"The impact seeing the Palestinian flag next to the IGN logo had on me is impossible to overstate, or the article on Game Informer. Even if it was only up for a day before their teams were silenced, that day matters. How many people saw that flag, that post, & educated themselves?"
— https://twitter.com/tha_rami/status/1394003484605915142
— https://twitter.com/tha_rami/status/1394003484605915142
I’m going to guess that you also believe that people should be fired from their jobs for holding the wrong views, too.
[deleted]
Sad. Really sad.
Though the article (lightly) suggests the articles were taken down due to corporate influence, with a "hiding the truth" style bent.
The comments at this stage also suggest that this is a free-speech issue, or an issue of raising money for humanitarian issues.
I think the simplest explanation may be that game sites don't feel the need to get involved in political issues. Just like HN also doesn't get involved. There are many other and better sources to be informed of the issues, and places where you can be directed to charities.
Why should every site on the internet become a focal point for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? What about the Uighurs? Where is their coverage? Or the Rohingya? The list goes on and on.
I expect to get downvoted for this comment, but keen to hear what the actual opposing view is. Please comment if you feel I'm wrong.
The comments at this stage also suggest that this is a free-speech issue, or an issue of raising money for humanitarian issues.
I think the simplest explanation may be that game sites don't feel the need to get involved in political issues. Just like HN also doesn't get involved. There are many other and better sources to be informed of the issues, and places where you can be directed to charities.
Why should every site on the internet become a focal point for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? What about the Uighurs? Where is their coverage? Or the Rohingya? The list goes on and on.
I expect to get downvoted for this comment, but keen to hear what the actual opposing view is. Please comment if you feel I'm wrong.
[deleted]
> Following the most recent set of violent military strikes by the Israel Defense Forces that have leveled entire buildings in Gaza and left over 180 Palestinians dead,
> As Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians continue
> Palestine and various charities that are trying to help the victims of Israel’s ongoing military attacks
What a one-sided simplistic load of garbage.
I fully expect this article to be taken down when an actual journalist points out how sub-standard the writing and journalistic integrity is in this piece. Utter trash.
> As Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians continue
> Palestine and various charities that are trying to help the victims of Israel’s ongoing military attacks
What a one-sided simplistic load of garbage.
I fully expect this article to be taken down when an actual journalist points out how sub-standard the writing and journalistic integrity is in this piece. Utter trash.