Regarding Last Weekend’s Hearthstone Grandmasters Tournament(news.blizzard.com)
news.blizzard.com
Regarding Last Weekend’s Hearthstone Grandmasters Tournament
https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament
177 comments
This is so hypocritical and absurd that I assumed you had to be exaggerating but you weren't at all: https://kotaku.com/college-hearthstone-players-who-held-up-f...
Yes. It's hypocritical. It's very easy to see through.
Well the real test of hypocrisy is if someone made a statement in support of China on the same topic in a streamed event. Or if someone made a comment about any divisive issue from any side. Note I am saying it's a test of hypocrisy not whether their policy is "moral" or not
The reality is companies are in the politics of pandering to gain the largest audience possible. Blizzard is perfectly fine with western participants wearing things such as gay pride clothing (sadly a social/political issue) because it's popular with their audience. But they don't like what happened here because it isn't popular with their audience in China.
So of course it has to do with China. If they knew it wouldn't get them kicked out, and most of their potential players in China supported the issue, they wouldn't have cared. Because that's exactly how they handle social/political issues in the west.
So of course it has to do with China. If they knew it wouldn't get them kicked out, and most of their potential players in China supported the issue, they wouldn't have cared. Because that's exactly how they handle social/political issues in the west.
Blizzard:
> If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.
Also Blizzard:
> We will defend the pride of our nation (that nation being China)
So when will they be terminating the people in their company that posted that announcement on behalf of the company? Oh wait, they won't be, because this company is completely and utterly full of shit. This is a company that will ban players for using naughty words, but won't ban a country from the market place for actual real life atrocities. People like this make me ashamed to be American. Honesty and integrity mean nothing in this country. All people care about is whether you use nice words.
> If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.
Also Blizzard:
> We will defend the pride of our nation (that nation being China)
So when will they be terminating the people in their company that posted that announcement on behalf of the company? Oh wait, they won't be, because this company is completely and utterly full of shit. This is a company that will ban players for using naughty words, but won't ban a country from the market place for actual real life atrocities. People like this make me ashamed to be American. Honesty and integrity mean nothing in this country. All people care about is whether you use nice words.
The word “nation” as you quoted above isn’t present in the post by Blizzard linked here. Is your quote from another Blizzard statement somewhere?
It was posted by Blizzard's partner in China, NetEase, on an official Blizzard account on weibo.
>We will defend the pride of our nation
That statement was made by NetEase, a Chinese company, not Blizzard.
That statement was made by NetEase, a Chinese company, not Blizzard.
It was made by a company that works for blizzard under blizzard's name as an official blizzard response to the event. Your failure to include this information makes it look like you are attempting to mislead people.
My own take throughout the whole thing is similar to Brian Kibler's [1]. To me, even though it made sense that Blizzard wanted to stay neutral, the punishment was too severe for all of the people involved (zero prize money, 1 year ban) so it's nice that at least one of them was reverted.
[1]: http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/
Sidenote, Linus is reading the statement on the WAN show and he mentioned that Blizzard was "Lawful Evil." That's a pretty solid way to put it
[1]: http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/
Sidenote, Linus is reading the statement on the WAN show and he mentioned that Blizzard was "Lawful Evil." That's a pretty solid way to put it
Dunno about version 3 or later, but in the classic system ‘lawful’ means adhering to strict principles and ‘evil’ means selfish with disregard to others. So I'm pretty sure Blizzard is either chaotic or neutral, what with it trying to appease both sides at once. And probably neutral on the good-evil axis, since it passably honestly trades its games for the money.
Are there any multinationals that aren't chaotic evil, posing as lawful neutral?
> it made sense that Blizzard wanted to stay neutral
To me it made sense that Blizzard wanted China's money, see diablo mobile.
"Do you guys not have phones?"
Also there are reports Blizzard is stopping people from deleting their accounts.
To me it made sense that Blizzard wanted China's money, see diablo mobile.
"Do you guys not have phones?"
Also there are reports Blizzard is stopping people from deleting their accounts.
I ran into that "stopping from being able to delete your account" thing with regards to the SMS code to verify your account. Its definitely real, at least for some people.
My suspicion, however, is that it was an unintentional bug on their end. We've all seen this before in engineering. You're using some service like Twilio. You've got a TON of people trying to cancel their account at the same time, using SMS verification. Their backend trips a rate limiter or account limit. You don't handle the error properly, and the client gets an inaccurate error. Its a story as old as time.
I went through the drivers license verification just fine. Its totally possible that they're being malicious, but its just so much more likely that engineering fucked up and it was blown out of proportion.
My suspicion, however, is that it was an unintentional bug on their end. We've all seen this before in engineering. You're using some service like Twilio. You've got a TON of people trying to cancel their account at the same time, using SMS verification. Their backend trips a rate limiter or account limit. You don't handle the error properly, and the client gets an inaccurate error. Its a story as old as time.
I went through the drivers license verification just fine. Its totally possible that they're being malicious, but its just so much more likely that engineering fucked up and it was blown out of proportion.
> If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.
So now some Chinese player should make a statement praising China and condemning Hong Kong.
(But I've already said it: with Blizzard controlling a huge money market in WoW and China being big on farming that gold all day every day, there's zero chance Blizzard would give that up.)
So now some Chinese player should make a statement praising China and condemning Hong Kong.
(But I've already said it: with Blizzard controlling a huge money market in WoW and China being big on farming that gold all day every day, there's zero chance Blizzard would give that up.)
By the way, does anyone know what the estimates are for the size of the in-game economy in WoW: items, characters, currency/jewelry, etc? I've heard some claims that would sober me right up, but dunno if those were too fictional.
If you're talking in real-world currency, then the size of the ingame economy is the sum of the maximums each player would be willing to spend for things in the game.
Any other calculations are just cryptocurrency-esque market cap dreams.
Any other calculations are just cryptocurrency-esque market cap dreams.
its not as clear cut in WoW's case. you got blizzard selling game time tokens which players can sell on the auction house for atm ~230k gold.
and this isnt just an option, but something done extremely frequently. tokens are usually sold within one day.
(and blizzard takes ~40% more € for that token than a subscription would take, so blizzard actually has a massive profit margin there)
and this isnt just an option, but something done extremely frequently. tokens are usually sold within one day.
(and blizzard takes ~40% more € for that token than a subscription would take, so blizzard actually has a massive profit margin there)
How is that not as clear?
The real world money to purchase those token (and anything else) come from people. Those people do not have infinite resources to spend on the game.
Ergo, if you exhaust their real world resources, and then offer them the best item in the game for $1, they wouldn't take it.
At that point, you've got the value of the total in-game economy. Because anything virtual after that would be worthless.
(Subject to demand curve, etc. But in aggregate it boils down to the same point.)
(You might be able to make the case that speculators without interest in the game would come in at that point to buy items, but I'd question how many would take the risk after the playerbase was already financially drained)
The real world money to purchase those token (and anything else) come from people. Those people do not have infinite resources to spend on the game.
Ergo, if you exhaust their real world resources, and then offer them the best item in the game for $1, they wouldn't take it.
At that point, you've got the value of the total in-game economy. Because anything virtual after that would be worthless.
(Subject to demand curve, etc. But in aggregate it boils down to the same point.)
(You might be able to make the case that speculators without interest in the game would come in at that point to buy items, but I'd question how many would take the risk after the playerbase was already financially drained)
its not so clear because while your argument is true - people are only gonna spent disposable money on this - it can nonetheless be directly linked to actual transactions which happen at an incredibly frequent rate.
there is an actual cashflow happening - and not just for speculation like with cryptocurrencies - as people are actually spending the ingame currencies on their respective markets, which often removes the money from the market entirely. (not everything you buy ingame is sold by players)
there is an actual cashflow happening - and not just for speculation like with cryptocurrencies - as people are actually spending the ingame currencies on their respective markets, which often removes the money from the market entirely. (not everything you buy ingame is sold by players)
It's probably higher than whatever number you've seen. This is coming from someone that has been monetarily involved in this space.
Summary of changes made:
* Blitzchung will receive all his prize money.
* Bliztchung's suspension from pro play halved to 6 months
* Casters will now be allowed to cast Blizzard events after 6 months
Key statements:
* In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly
* The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.
* We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.
* If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.
Source: Reddit comment
* Blitzchung will receive all his prize money.
* Bliztchung's suspension from pro play halved to 6 months
* Casters will now be allowed to cast Blizzard events after 6 months
Key statements:
* In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly
* The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.
* We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.
* If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.
Source: Reddit comment
When quoting an external source here, please provide the link.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/dgnqp...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/dgnqp...
Imagine a comparable situation. Someone wins an olympic medal, and makes a political statement in the subsequent interview. Then the olympic committee decides to take the medal away, and ban the winner from competing again.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Heh, feels like reading Blizzard patch notes!
I’m not a gamer, but I imagine most are smart enough to see through this cringe-y PR disaster. Late Friday night dump of nonsense corporate speak is painfully predictable. This will do more harm than good. Yikes.
Oh they absolutely are not. You should see the way people have always, and will always defend this company.
Scanning social media, I haven't seen a single gaming influencer say it's a sufficient statement: https://twitter.com/search?q=filter%3Averified%20https%3A%2F...
The contrarian viewpoint is "what were you expecting?" in which case the reply is "an actual apology."
The contrarian viewpoint is "what were you expecting?" in which case the reply is "an actual apology."
Anecdotally, most those I know, while unhappy about it, are continuing to play. While I don’t think people are going to defend this, I doubt this will meaningfully affect them in the long-term.
It’s easy for companies, after some backlash by a loud yet small crowd on social media, to blacklist a certain high profile individual out of risk. It’s hard for that same group to make a difference against an organization as large as Blizzard. Most people still want their product.
It’s easy for companies, after some backlash by a loud yet small crowd on social media, to blacklist a certain high profile individual out of risk. It’s hard for that same group to make a difference against an organization as large as Blizzard. Most people still want their product.
I plan to avoid their games with the exception of playing with a particular sick friend. I don’t intend to buy another for a very, very long time.
Can’t speak for other people though
Can’t speak for other people though
I've been unable to play this week. I haven't outright deleted my account, but it made me sick to the stomach to think about opening the Blizzard launcher.
I've seen others in StarCraft related subreddits share similar feelings. I agree the majority seem to still want the game and community to continue on as is.
I've seen others in StarCraft related subreddits share similar feelings. I agree the majority seem to still want the game and community to continue on as is.
Or even a hamfisted attempt at an apology like you get out of many PR departments. The only thing that remotely resembles an apology in the whole release is:
> In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.
No explanation of how that happened. No discussion about what they are doing to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's not even saying, "We made a snap decision and it was wrong." It seems to be saying, "We made all the right decisions, but we're going to tune the degree a little."
> In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.
No explanation of how that happened. No discussion about what they are doing to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's not even saying, "We made a snap decision and it was wrong." It seems to be saying, "We made all the right decisions, but we're going to tune the degree a little."
They did a much better job apologizing to China.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfkmp1/blizzards_...
Had they not done that they might be believable, but because of the way the kowtow to china, definitely hard to find any honesty/truth in their statement.
Had they not done that they might be believable, but because of the way the kowtow to china, definitely hard to find any honesty/truth in their statement.
>> In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.
I'm not even sure here what "reacted too quickly" means. If the player did clearly violate an unobjectionable Blizzard policy, one would hope that the sanction would be swift -- it shouldn't take a week to (for example) ban a player for blatant cheating.
I'm not even sure here what "reacted too quickly" means. If the player did clearly violate an unobjectionable Blizzard policy, one would hope that the sanction would be swift -- it shouldn't take a week to (for example) ban a player for blatant cheating.
Any apology would then upset their Chinese customers, like the NBA.
Gamers aren't very loyal. And Blizzard has certainly not been defended by its gamers here - it's been heavily condemned by the whole gaming community, which is why we're hearing so much about it and blizzard is issuing a PR statement. Just look at reddit's r/blizzard right now, it's a shitshow. Pages upon pages of posts protesting against blizzard's handling of the events.
There are still multiple posts about it on the Reddit front page too, at least earlier
I don't think this is totally inaccurate, though there are probably more puppet accounts than sincere Blizzard apologists.
I'd be more worried about the influence that propaganda machines can have, and what's freaking me out is that you actually have to look to spot those sorts of posts. Most people don't look.
I'd be more worried about the influence that propaganda machines can have, and what's freaking me out is that you actually have to look to spot those sorts of posts. Most people don't look.
I dunno, the hearthstone subreddit still seems pretty angry...
Ellen Pao (former Reddit CEO):
"Tech companies: We tolerate harassment and hate so we can enable political dissent, public squares, free speech
Also tech companies: Censor the Hong Kong protestors and kill all their communication channels"
https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1182710608887611394?s=21
"Tech companies: We tolerate harassment and hate so we can enable political dissent, public squares, free speech
Also tech companies: Censor the Hong Kong protestors and kill all their communication channels"
https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1182710608887611394?s=21
Didn’t she ban a lot of subreddits?
She's mocking the free speech line in that tweet.
Reddit has to make a lot of decisions, some were soon after she joined. Not sure CEOs of social media company get involved in making that decision personally, rather than name people who would -- Pao might be an exception, though.
From all the subreddits that were closed, I’d be hard-pressed to name one that I felt contributed to free speech.
From all the subreddits that were closed, I’d be hard-pressed to name one that I felt contributed to free speech.
She absolutely was intimately involved, a lot of her drama and changes were the reason I left that site for good.
She is correct in her tweet, however.
Also once upon a time reddit praised itself for free speech. It held itself to a higher standard... supposedly.
She is correct in her tweet, however.
Also once upon a time reddit praised itself for free speech. It held itself to a higher standard... supposedly.
care to share the groups that were banned you disagreed with?
> I’d be hard-pressed to name one that I felt contributed to free speech.
As in US Constitution free speech? I can think of dozens.
r/SanctionedSuicide
r/DarknetMarkets
r/shoplifting
r/gore
r/watchpeopledie
As in US Constitution free speech? I can think of dozens.
r/SanctionedSuicide
r/DarknetMarkets
r/shoplifting
r/gore
r/watchpeopledie
I don't know enough about the situation to take a definite position.
However, it seems to me that free speech is intended to protect the expression of unpopular viewpoints. In that case, I think that we should protect people's right to advocate that suicide, shoplifting, or advocating watching people die should be legal.
However, as long as those things are not legal then it doesn't necessarily violate free speech to restrict the practices themselves or information on how to engage in the practices.
However, it seems to me that free speech is intended to protect the expression of unpopular viewpoints. In that case, I think that we should protect people's right to advocate that suicide, shoplifting, or advocating watching people die should be legal.
However, as long as those things are not legal then it doesn't necessarily violate free speech to restrict the practices themselves or information on how to engage in the practices.
Actually spent quite a while going through the list of banned subs to eliminate contentious ones, gotta make commenters work for it :)
They are a US based website subject to those laws, even if those words posted on their site didn't violate laws, it's entirely legal for them to censor at will for any reason they deem ok.
They are a US based website subject to those laws, even if those words posted on their site didn't violate laws, it's entirely legal for them to censor at will for any reason they deem ok.
r/DarknetMarkets was banned because of the FOSTA-SESTA anti-sex "trafficking" bill. The government forced Reddit's hand on that.
> contributed to free speech.
What does it mean to "contribute to" free speech?
What does it mean to "contribute to" free speech?
In most cases, the subreddits openly advocated for crimes, often violent, which I understand is the type of speech that isn’t protected by even the most relaxed definition of free speech.
It's protected in the US. You can advocate for all the crime and violence you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
"Blizzard censored the wrong opinions."
So different tech companies act differently? Why is that surprising.
Do people still take Ellen Pao seriously? On free speech, no less?
She lead the charge in censoring and banning Reddit communities that offended her.
She lead the charge in censoring and banning Reddit communities that offended her.
Not a great look. This line:
> The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will explain.
Is basically saying, "What we did actually exemplifies our values", or maybe saying, "Well actually, our values..."
Combined with the complete lack of acknowledgement of wrongdoing and not addressing their initial online response at all, I don't expect this will smooth things over at all.
> The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will explain.
Is basically saying, "What we did actually exemplifies our values", or maybe saying, "Well actually, our values..."
Combined with the complete lack of acknowledgement of wrongdoing and not addressing their initial online response at all, I don't expect this will smooth things over at all.
Lack of acknowledgement? They reduced the penalties, both for the casters and the player...
The only reasonable response is removal of all penalties and an apology, anything short of that is insufficient.
I dunno, I'd understand a one game suspension or a warning or something. I am sympathetic to not wanting to turn winner's interviews into soapboxes. I'd expect a bit of training for the casters -- here's what you could have done differently.
But 6 months is outlandish.
But 6 months is outlandish.
It’s extremely irresponsible for blizzard to host a massive platform for speech and pretend that platform exists in a vacuum outside of current events. (Read: politics.) In the same way that public platforms are dangerous when used for hate speech, they’re also dangerous when those advocating for positive change are banned from them.
Whatever Blizzard set out to do, it’s exceptionally naive not to acknowledge that demand changes a public technology.
… but of course we know what this is about. We know it’s about not wanting to cut off a large revenue stream.
Whatever Blizzard set out to do, it’s exceptionally naive not to acknowledge that demand changes a public technology.
… but of course we know what this is about. We know it’s about not wanting to cut off a large revenue stream.
FIFA also bans politics from its platform.
I’m surprised to quote FIFA as an example but on that point, they have had fairly exemplary approach [0]. Players occasionally try to make political statements, and Fifa has a progressive take on infractions. An unexpected outburst after a victory is usually met with a stern conversation, possibly leaked to the press for good measure; repeated offence, something egregious acting after being explicitly warned not to lead to symbolic fines. You’d need to really cross a line to get near the sanction that Blizzard thought was appropriate for someone expressing a widespread sentiment in his home country.
[0] https://www.lawinsport.com/content/sports/item/politics-and-...
[0] https://www.lawinsport.com/content/sports/item/politics-and-...
FIFA is also notoriously corrupt, so I'm not sure I'd be looking for them for ethical leadership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case
Blizzard dosen't give a shit about it being political speech, what they care about is that it might upset the Chinese Communist Party, and their profits in the process.
https://i.imgur.com/xQfRoPa.jpg
https://kotaku.com/college-hearthstone-players-who-held-up-f...
Them pretending otherwise is a complete, outright lie.
https://i.imgur.com/xQfRoPa.jpg
https://kotaku.com/college-hearthstone-players-who-held-up-f...
Them pretending otherwise is a complete, outright lie.
I didn't know that as I'm not up on soccer, but I'm not surprised. This is liberal ideology at its most pure, and it leads to a great many of the social problems we have today. Some know taking a moral position will disenfranchise some subset and reduce their income, and some know that society would recoil (usually rightly!) at their views if they were forced to spell them out.
Are you perhaps using "liberal ideology" in a way that's different than what I'm used to? It seems that Blizzard's decisions were made in service of Capitalism which is a belief system that I associate more with conservative rather than liberal ideology.
Some people think China wrote some or all of this response:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SGBluebell/status/118281758814705...
https://mobile.twitter.com/SGBluebell/status/118281758814705...
I highly recommend anyone following this thread to take a look at those tweets and replies.
I thought there was some awkward speech but didnt realize why.
What are prizings? This definitely was not written by an English speaker which takes it from corporate BS to totally creepy.
I thought there was some awkward speech but didnt realize why.
What are prizings? This definitely was not written by an English speaker which takes it from corporate BS to totally creepy.
> We now believe he should receive his prizing. We understand that for some this is not about the prize, and perhaps for others it is disrespectful to even discuss it. That is not our intention.
It's a little weird that they say they "believe he should receive" his prize, rather than saying that he actually will. It's hard to think of a reason they would word it that way, except to give the false impression that he's getting the prize he won.
It's a little weird that they say they "believe he should receive" his prize, rather than saying that he actually will. It's hard to think of a reason they would word it that way, except to give the false impression that he's getting the prize he won.
Wow yes that really is odd, thanks for pointing it out. Not proud to say it, but their statement fooled me (made me skim right past it thinking what they wanted me to think) the first time.
False equivalence. One group is oppressing the other group, and the oppressed are told to shut up because the oppressor's feelings will get hurt and will make the Blizzard's community feel less diverse and inclusive .. facepalm ..
It's a soft peddle statement drafted by the PR department hoping the mainstream media would pick it up. There are too many contradictions between:
a) what was said in the statement, and Blizzard's statement made on Chinese social media at the time, and
b) the lack of discipline on American tournament players who also protested.
Furthermore a written statement is nothing compared to a video, where vocal intonation and body language communicates a lot.
Bottom line, releasing this statement will only intensify criticism that Blizzard is "Lawfully Evil".
The irony is that Blizzard's fanbase are 'heroes' who overcome evil in their games. Blizzard's actions are the very antithesis of their player bases' psychology.
This isn't over, and with Blizzcon around the corner, I predict escalation and Blizzcon being a total PR disaster.
a) what was said in the statement, and Blizzard's statement made on Chinese social media at the time, and
b) the lack of discipline on American tournament players who also protested.
Furthermore a written statement is nothing compared to a video, where vocal intonation and body language communicates a lot.
Bottom line, releasing this statement will only intensify criticism that Blizzard is "Lawfully Evil".
The irony is that Blizzard's fanbase are 'heroes' who overcome evil in their games. Blizzard's actions are the very antithesis of their player bases' psychology.
This isn't over, and with Blizzcon around the corner, I predict escalation and Blizzcon being a total PR disaster.
Digusting.
If that had happened in the context of any other unimportant country, where no launch of a mobile game is planned, and which is not in a habit of crying and shouting down foreign press and companies, then Blizzard would have done nothing.
In fact, the language used here, about openness and 'feeling welcome' (cf hurt feelings) comes close to the CCP phrasebook. CCP, to remind you, has publicly stated that opinions on China affairs from foreigners and utterings that make people feel unwelcome ot hurt feelings, are not free speech.
HK people are fighting for their freedom and their lives. They need public support in the West to have a chance. Blizzard sanctioning them or others for this shows abundently clear on which side this company is!
In fact, the language used here, about openness and 'feeling welcome' (cf hurt feelings) comes close to the CCP phrasebook. CCP, to remind you, has publicly stated that opinions on China affairs from foreigners and utterings that make people feel unwelcome ot hurt feelings, are not free speech.
HK people are fighting for their freedom and their lives. They need public support in the West to have a chance. Blizzard sanctioning them or others for this shows abundently clear on which side this company is!
> One of our goals at Blizzard is to make sure that every player, everywhere in the world, regardless of political views, religious beliefs, race, gender, or any other consideration always feels safe [..] playing our games
This HN comment from 6 years ago comes to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154475
This HN comment from 6 years ago comes to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154475
Thank you for sharing this. That is... What an incredible thing to think about. For > 6 years, the CCP may have been using _WoW_ to _literally spy_ on it's citizens and Blizzard would've been _completely complicit_. What's maybe most surprising to me, sitting here today with the benefit of hindsight, is how much that simple comment says about the rest of the 2010 decade that proceeded it. How it all _looks_ true and how the veil seems to be lifting so quickly (on how far reaching the CCPs influence is).
Could that have been Grummz? https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1181736075775004672
Just shameful. They are taking the side of a repressive regime over a player expressing support for universal values.
Mealy-mouthed corpospeak will not save you now.
Mealy-mouthed corpospeak will not save you now.
Why would Blizzard bother to lie about this? I guess they're trying to recover from all of the negative press, but it looks like they're just digging themselves into a deeper hole.
The lies are weird. They're claiming they would have snapped off a 12 month ban for saying any political slogan, which is...insane. Wildly disproportionate. Not even a little plausible.
There's no explanation for Blizzard's actions that does not include feared pressure from China, and it's just insulting for them to claim otherwise.
There's no explanation for Blizzard's actions that does not include feared pressure from China, and it's just insulting for them to claim otherwise.
Maybe it's to sway people who are on the fence, if such a demographic actually exists. This statement might be enough for them to think "See, Blizzard isn't that bad, from now on I will assume the people still complaining are the wrong ones, and I will say 'Blizzard apologized, what more do you want?!?'.".
Maybe the CEO even thinks "you can't make everyone happy, at least I did something.". And in the back of his head he probably thinks "but make sure China is happy!".
Maybe the CEO even thinks "you can't make everyone happy, at least I did something.". And in the back of his head he probably thinks "but make sure China is happy!".
Wow so many lines of PR fluff to basically say we have to make sure everyone obeys China's view of the world. blizzard, that post was completely useless unless you wanted to reinforce the impression you have no values other than big profits.
Reads like a typical corporate response. Sanitized by lawyers, PR, and executives. It says nothing substantial. It's trying to ride the middle ground but it's just flat out contradictory in the face of their actions these past few days.
Very sad. Whatever piece of the original Blizzard may have been left in Irvine is surely on life support from the beating that Activision has been giving it for the last decade(s).
Very sad. Whatever piece of the original Blizzard may have been left in Irvine is surely on life support from the beating that Activision has been giving it for the last decade(s).
I just don't think there is any of the original Blizzard left, except maybe the artists. WoW has tanked in gameplay, the Diablo franchise has been starved, and then forced into something it's not... Heroes of the Storm has been killed off, Starcraft has been starved. Classic WoW (old IP), Hearthstone (lets be fair it's a casual mobile game) and Overwatch (just another shooter) are pretty much it sadly.
The grammar in this post seems really awkward. It's almost like they cobbled together 3-4 different people's statements, didn't proof read it, then released it. Strange considering they waited so long.
If I had to translate this from corporate speak into the real world it would go something like "fuck off, we are following the money"
This part descends to absurdity:
> Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves. However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the official channels focused on the game.
One of their core values is "every voice matters" and with this paragraph they are trying to twist it from what it actually means, to supporting their decision to suppress dissent
> Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves. However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the official channels focused on the game.
One of their core values is "every voice matters" and with this paragraph they are trying to twist it from what it actually means, to supporting their decision to suppress dissent
Right? It's fucked to the point of comical absurdity. How on earth did they let anyone write this?
Ah, yes. Mealy-mouthed corporate nonsense. That'll shut the rabble up!
It's not even hard to avoid giving Blizzard money these days.
I suppose one must immerse oneself in the scientific system of Mao Zedong thought to see the truth—that Diablo is best played on a smartphone.
I suppose one must immerse oneself in the scientific system of Mao Zedong thought to see the truth—that Diablo is best played on a smartphone.
That piece is for sure loaded with weasel wording.
But on the other hand, blitzchung might have said or done many things during his segment. And just about everyone who is upset about Blizzard booting blitzchung here would demand that they boot him for at least some of those. Say, if he had ranted about gender issues, for example.
As always, perceptions depend on whose ox is getting gored.
But on the other hand, blitzchung might have said or done many things during his segment. And just about everyone who is upset about Blizzard booting blitzchung here would demand that they boot him for at least some of those. Say, if he had ranted about gender issues, for example.
As always, perceptions depend on whose ox is getting gored.
I support Blizzard's decision, it kept the bottom line. I feel ridiculous, in order to support the riots in another country, some people were so passionate. I think this people are affected by anti-China sentiment.
I write a post, tell everyone what happened in Hong Kong and try to persuade everyone not to make political opinions so easily, especially if a place is very far away from you.
Stand with Hong Kong, but which side? https://chloerei.com/2019/10/11/stand-with-hong-kong-but-whi...
The content may make you uncomfortable because it is different from the reporting position of some Western media. But looking at the problem from multiple angles will give you a more comprehensive understanding.
I write a post, tell everyone what happened in Hong Kong and try to persuade everyone not to make political opinions so easily, especially if a place is very far away from you.
Stand with Hong Kong, but which side? https://chloerei.com/2019/10/11/stand-with-hong-kong-but-whi...
The content may make you uncomfortable because it is different from the reporting position of some Western media. But looking at the problem from multiple angles will give you a more comprehensive understanding.
I agree with you that in the discussions of these issues on the Western internet sites, anti-China sentiment dominates and often blends with ignorance and prejudice. Unfortunately, if you post like you just did to HN, using inflammatory language like "I saw the hypocrisy of the Americans", you're guaranteed to take the thread further into nationalistic flamewar, and of course such language will be downvoted because it breaks HN's guidelines too (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
So if you're going to continue to post on HN, can you please make sure that your comments stay factual and neutral, and don't pour fuel on the fire? We ask the same of every user here.
Thanks for reply, I have edited the comments to more gentle.
[deleted]
I have a question, what if he was to thank his mom while on a broadcast that would not be about the content of the game either will he be banned for that? Talk about foot in your mouth Blizzard now we can all count down to Blizzcon and watch the fireworks I am sure there will be.
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.
Needless to say, this line has generated a very large amount of snark on social media.
Needless to say, this line has generated a very large amount of snark on social media.
This part really sours the whole statement. Blizzard fans WANT to forgive them, and instead of coming clean Blizz spit in their faces.
Also, changing the suspension period of the casters is a joke, they will clearly never work with Blizz again regardless of the 'official' length of the suspension.
Also, changing the suspension period of the casters is a joke, they will clearly never work with Blizz again regardless of the 'official' length of the suspension.
It almost makes you want to ask “blink twice if you’re saying this against your will,”
And the hope is they’d blink twice rather than not blink.
And the hope is they’d blink twice rather than not blink.
It's very Orwellian.
I don't see any way they could have addressed that without the hysteria still spinning it negatively.
Because it's not like they mention that out of nowhere: They are directly referring to accusations that they were pressured into shutting that particular player down by the Chinese government.
There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any answer contradicting that narrative.
Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first place.
The reality is that nobody needed to pressure Blizzard because its competitive scene has already seen quite a number of bans, some controversial, many not, over players using the spotlight to share their particular political messages.
It's nothing new and just like they explain in the statement: They do this regardless of the political views being aired, they just consider it not a platform for that.
Very comparable to how the Olympics are supposed to be an "unpolitical event", at least in theory.
Because it's not like they mention that out of nowhere: They are directly referring to accusations that they were pressured into shutting that particular player down by the Chinese government.
There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any answer contradicting that narrative.
Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first place.
The reality is that nobody needed to pressure Blizzard because its competitive scene has already seen quite a number of bans, some controversial, many not, over players using the spotlight to share their particular political messages.
It's nothing new and just like they explain in the statement: They do this regardless of the political views being aired, they just consider it not a platform for that.
Very comparable to how the Olympics are supposed to be an "unpolitical event", at least in theory.
> Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first place.
No.
There are two fan axes here: agreement and respect.
Companies (and your comment) seem to focus on the former, while being completely oblivious to the latter.
If Blizzard had said "Our Chinese economic interests pressured us into doing this" they would have faced intense disagreement.
But, they would have retained as least a modicum of respect.
Instead, they forfeited both.
And really? Putting out equivocal PR fluff in response to an issue in 2019? Activision-Blizzard's entire Communications department should be sacked.
No.
There are two fan axes here: agreement and respect.
Companies (and your comment) seem to focus on the former, while being completely oblivious to the latter.
If Blizzard had said "Our Chinese economic interests pressured us into doing this" they would have faced intense disagreement.
But, they would have retained as least a modicum of respect.
Instead, they forfeited both.
And really? Putting out equivocal PR fluff in response to an issue in 2019? Activision-Blizzard's entire Communications department should be sacked.
> Instead, they forfeited both.
How did they forfeit both? Do we have any evidence for Blizzard being pressured do this?
We absolutely have not, all we have is a bunch of social-media hysteria were this claim originally came from, in complete ignorance of the fact that Blizzard has banned plenty of pro-players before for voicing "negative speech" [0].
In that context your response is exactly what I was referring to: People are not interested in what actually happened, people only want to hear what they THINK happened, even if there's zilch evidence backing it up and it never actually happened.
Again: What evidence is there that Blizzard was pressured into doing this and as such debunking their reaction as a straight-faced lie? There is none, while there's a long list of other competitive players who've been banned for exactly the same reason.
I do not even understand why this is so controversial on HN out of all places. This whole comment section reads like Reddit, lots of appeals to emotions, very little sticking to the facts at hand.
[0] https://liquipedia.net/overwatch/Banned_players
How did they forfeit both? Do we have any evidence for Blizzard being pressured do this?
We absolutely have not, all we have is a bunch of social-media hysteria were this claim originally came from, in complete ignorance of the fact that Blizzard has banned plenty of pro-players before for voicing "negative speech" [0].
In that context your response is exactly what I was referring to: People are not interested in what actually happened, people only want to hear what they THINK happened, even if there's zilch evidence backing it up and it never actually happened.
Again: What evidence is there that Blizzard was pressured into doing this and as such debunking their reaction as a straight-faced lie? There is none, while there's a long list of other competitive players who've been banned for exactly the same reason.
I do not even understand why this is so controversial on HN out of all places. This whole comment section reads like Reddit, lots of appeals to emotions, very little sticking to the facts at hand.
[0] https://liquipedia.net/overwatch/Banned_players
You're taking a company's statement, that avoids any mention of money, economic interests, or China, at face value?
I hear your point, but what would a smoking gun look like?
An email or recorded conversation from the CCP about the actions they would take if Blizzard didn't keep the ban in place?
That positive confirmation bar seems unreasonably high.
I hear your point, but what would a smoking gun look like?
An email or recorded conversation from the CCP about the actions they would take if Blizzard didn't keep the ban in place?
That positive confirmation bar seems unreasonably high.
> An email or recorded conversation from the CCP about the actions they would take if Blizzard didn't keep the ban in place?
How about anything concrete that isn't just sheer hearsay and speculation out of the social media sphere?
And yet you consider it outrageous that I take Blizz statement at face value? I already explained my reasons for that: To me this ban is very in line with other previous bans Blizzard issued.
That does not mean that I condone them or that I agree with them, but it gives precedence to the situation, precedent that had absolutely nothing to do with China.
We have precedent for Blizzard having banned players over political statements before, we have no precedent for Blizzard having been pressured by the CCP to do so. So what is the most likely thing that happened here?
How about anything concrete that isn't just sheer hearsay and speculation out of the social media sphere?
And yet you consider it outrageous that I take Blizz statement at face value? I already explained my reasons for that: To me this ban is very in line with other previous bans Blizzard issued.
That does not mean that I condone them or that I agree with them, but it gives precedence to the situation, precedent that had absolutely nothing to do with China.
We have precedent for Blizzard having banned players over political statements before, we have no precedent for Blizzard having been pressured by the CCP to do so. So what is the most likely thing that happened here?
That seems like illogical reasoning.
The fact that Blizzard has banned people for making political statements before does not mean that there were no ancillary motivations in this instance.
You may feel otherwise, but I don't think a pattern of previous behavior unambiguously resolves the motivation behind an action.
The fact that Blizzard has banned people for making political statements before does not mean that there were no ancillary motivations in this instance.
You may feel otherwise, but I don't think a pattern of previous behavior unambiguously resolves the motivation behind an action.
Blizzard's construction of "unpolitical" is itself very political. The notion that people should hide who they are and what matters to them except as it's compatible with profit maximization is stridently political. Ditto the notion that even if people are killed six inches outside the venue for political reasons, everybody inside the venue should pretend everything's fine.
I do give points to Blizzard for the amount of Orwellian doublespeak here. They were just compelled to punish and deplatform because of their values of "Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters!" Certainly nothing political about that!
I do give points to Blizzard for the amount of Orwellian doublespeak here. They were just compelled to punish and deplatform because of their values of "Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters!" Certainly nothing political about that!
> The notion that people should hide who they are and what matters to them except as it's compatible with profit maximization is stridently political.
Yet that's exactly what most major publishers have been doing with their crackdown on toxicity.
We've created these "safe spaces" where anything that could be interpreted as even remotely controversial is off-limits and ban-worthy because profit maximation is the only actual goal for a company like Blizzard.
Yet that's exactly what most major publishers have been doing with their crackdown on toxicity.
We've created these "safe spaces" where anything that could be interpreted as even remotely controversial is off-limits and ban-worthy because profit maximation is the only actual goal for a company like Blizzard.
> I don't see any way they could have addressed that without the hysteria still spinning it negatively.
> There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any answer contradicting that narrative.
> Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first place.
Exactly. They did a shit thing and now there's shit on their face, of course it's going to be a negative outcome. There isn't always magic words they can say to make everything better again.
> There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any answer contradicting that narrative.
> Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first place.
Exactly. They did a shit thing and now there's shit on their face, of course it's going to be a negative outcome. There isn't always magic words they can say to make everything better again.
> The reality is that nobody needed to pressure Blizzard because its competitive scene has already seen quite a number of bans, some controversial, many not, over players using the spotlight to share their particular political messages.
Please share some examples. I vaguely recall stuff over the years about the Olympics. But I don't follow gaming.
Please share some examples. I vaguely recall stuff over the years about the Olympics. But I don't follow gaming.
A list for Overwatch can be found here [0]. They've banned people for "unsportsmanlike conduct" and "negative speech", as a separate thing from "toxcitiy" [1] which they have been trying to clamp down heavily on for years now, like most major publishers.
As somebody following gaming, this has much more to do with "safe space" culture than Blizzard being pressured to do anything by external actors. These are massive corporations, they do not need an external force pushing them to keep everything they do as "uncontroversial" as possible.
Having your sponsored event be the spotlight for political statements is the exact opposite of that. Something too many people here completely ignore because they happen to agree with that particular political statement.
But I doubt these same people would support similar freedom of speech, in that situation, if a player used their spotlight to prostylze for a religion, or tell the world about their personal views on things like homosexuality.
[0] https://liquipedia.net/overwatch/Banned_players
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/01/29/blizzard-co...
As somebody following gaming, this has much more to do with "safe space" culture than Blizzard being pressured to do anything by external actors. These are massive corporations, they do not need an external force pushing them to keep everything they do as "uncontroversial" as possible.
Having your sponsored event be the spotlight for political statements is the exact opposite of that. Something too many people here completely ignore because they happen to agree with that particular political statement.
But I doubt these same people would support similar freedom of speech, in that situation, if a player used their spotlight to prostylze for a religion, or tell the world about their personal views on things like homosexuality.
[0] https://liquipedia.net/overwatch/Banned_players
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/01/29/blizzard-co...
"Our goal is to help players connect in areas of commonality".
If you only keep the intersection of all "cultures", you end up with a very small subset.
I feel like the original decision was so harsh and the optics of it was incredibly bad that this "meet in the middle" resolution still doesn't cut it. It's like when a post-mortem only contains: "In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly." and they don't elaborate more on the inadequacy or the hastiness.
Maybe I just want blood but it feels pretty unsatisfying.
Maybe I just want blood but it feels pretty unsatisfying.
I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision
Yes, I too appreciate being lied to outright in a letter addressed to me
Makes me feel really positive about Blizzard
Makes me feel really positive about Blizzard
Question for all of y'all: what would happen if an Olympic athlete expressed or signalled a strong political view (beyond just "my country good, your country bad") during an official Olympic ceremony?
Then they would have worked their whole lives for something larger and more meaningful than their own individual abilities, and in the process, shown two forms of strength instead of one.
It has happened multiple time before —almost often in Football Association— and the official reaction are generally to treat those with mild disapproval for “outbursts”. The message is clearer: athletes are welcome to advocate away from the pitch, but until they leave the podium, they should focus on the sport.
Sanctions are typically adapted: symbolic at most for something unsurprising (a Black athlete campaigning for racial equality, an athlete defending a popular political movement in their home country) and stronger for something heinous (a football made Nazi references).
Sanctions are typically adapted: symbolic at most for something unsurprising (a Black athlete campaigning for racial equality, an athlete defending a popular political movement in their home country) and stronger for something heinous (a football made Nazi references).
[deleted]
[deleted]
Command + f "sorry": 0 results
Command + f "mistake": 0 results
Command + f "apologize": 0 results
They still aren't listening to a PR expert, and this is only going to throw gasoline on the fire. This blog post [1] counseling Burning Man back in their dumpster fire of pain when they switched to a lottery system is very instructional, Blizzard should be following it to the letter if they intend to get out of this hole.
[1] https://alyssaroyse.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/burning-the-man...
Command + f "mistake": 0 results
Command + f "apologize": 0 results
They still aren't listening to a PR expert, and this is only going to throw gasoline on the fire. This blog post [1] counseling Burning Man back in their dumpster fire of pain when they switched to a lottery system is very instructional, Blizzard should be following it to the letter if they intend to get out of this hole.
[1] https://alyssaroyse.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/burning-the-man...
> They still aren't listening to a PR expert, and this is only going to throw gasoline on the fire.
Of course, if they had listened to a PR expert and written a first-rate apology letter, then we'd be calling them out as insincere and saying it was just PR fluff, a la the StackExchange letter recently.
Of course, if they had listened to a PR expert and written a first-rate apology letter, then we'd be calling them out as insincere and saying it was just PR fluff, a la the StackExchange letter recently.
It depends on the expert, I suppose. I know comms people who will very sincerely argue for actions to go with words. Just like they do in the real world, really. But for to work you need executives who aren't just trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Still, even an insincere apology has a far better taste than none at all.
They dragged someone's name through the mud and didn't even try to apologise for that. They said they were sorry to the community but at same time gave the community no extra time to influence the decisions. It was a well crafted apology but insincere. I don't think we gain anythijg for applauding that.
That's mistaken. Everybody called out the first Stack apology because it was like this -- not an apology. The second Stack apology was much better recieved because it was actually written as an apology, even through their actions didn't change at all.
They were put in a lose-lose situation from the start.
Yep, however that way they'd atleast have a better chance of reducing the impact the drama is gonna have on blizzcon.
I agree.
Something to remember is China was a much different place 10 years ago when Blizzard started being distributed there.
I don’t see this as being about the money as much as it is about really freaking complicated relationships. You can’t turn off a billion dollar business in an afternoon.
Something to remember is China was a much different place 10 years ago when Blizzard started being distributed there.
I don’t see this as being about the money as much as it is about really freaking complicated relationships. You can’t turn off a billion dollar business in an afternoon.
> They were put in a lose-lose situation from the start
Sure, but it’s telling which lose they chose. If we don’t want this to keep happening, the consequences from losing us have to be greater.
Sure, but it’s telling which lose they chose. If we don’t want this to keep happening, the consequences from losing us have to be greater.
And I immediately check blizzard cn website. They don't even has this announcement.
https://cn.news.blizzard.com/zh-cn
https://cn.news.blizzard.com/zh-cn
They have a statement in China. It just has the opposite message than here, with them implying it was the specific message they disagree with.
https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1182867411260698625?s=19
https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1182867411260698625?s=19
Perhaps their PR experts have decided not apologizing will cause them temporary pain in the short term, but people have short memories and a new generation of gamers with no recollection of the past will latch on to some future bright shiny thing from Blizzard.
To use your example, Burning Man still sells out within minutes, and few current burners actually remember the ticket lottery of 2012. There have been numerous fiascos including the Ticketfly data breach, tickets getting lost in the mail and sent without signature confirmation, and cancellation scams. Volunteers being denied the staff tickets they were promised. Yet for every jaded burner who stops attending, a fresh virgin (first-year burner) takes their place.
To use your example, Burning Man still sells out within minutes, and few current burners actually remember the ticket lottery of 2012. There have been numerous fiascos including the Ticketfly data breach, tickets getting lost in the mail and sent without signature confirmation, and cancellation scams. Volunteers being denied the staff tickets they were promised. Yet for every jaded burner who stops attending, a fresh virgin (first-year burner) takes their place.
Frankly, I believe that following your advice would be completely counterproductive for them. If Trump and recent politics have proven anything to me it's that when you are the focus of media attention, admitting fault and apologizing is always the wrong thing to do from a PR point of view. Apologizing never wins anyone over, but it does alienate your supporters.
It's unfortunate, and it's counterintuitive because it's not what makes sense in everyday life. But a media circus is not everyday life.
It's unfortunate, and it's counterintuitive because it's not what makes sense in everyday life. But a media circus is not everyday life.
Apologizing can, in fact, win people over _if_ authentic and followed up by appropriate action.
One recent incident I've been tracking jumps immediately to mind.
Recently, a D&D streamcast, Critical Role, decided to participate in a Wendy's promotion, to the horror of their fanbase which largely eschews big corporations and their _marginal_ (in all senses of the word ;-) ) food products. A vocal contingent of the community felt this promotion was not at all aligned with the progressive values of the streamcast and community, and they let the org have it!
Within 24 hours, the Chief Creative Officer (and general face of the stream) apologized, and the org announced it was donating all its profits to a charity supporting farm workers.
Sure, there were a couple of angry people who were still not satisfied, and there are probably unpleasant longer-term consequences with potential future advertisers that they will have to deal with. But, in large part because they pay careful and compassionate attention to their community, you could see that the bulk of the community immediately jumped back on board.
Do not let Trump erode your sense of what is right for your product, company, and community. The dark side, after all, is not more powerful – only easier and more seductive.
One recent incident I've been tracking jumps immediately to mind.
Recently, a D&D streamcast, Critical Role, decided to participate in a Wendy's promotion, to the horror of their fanbase which largely eschews big corporations and their _marginal_ (in all senses of the word ;-) ) food products. A vocal contingent of the community felt this promotion was not at all aligned with the progressive values of the streamcast and community, and they let the org have it!
Within 24 hours, the Chief Creative Officer (and general face of the stream) apologized, and the org announced it was donating all its profits to a charity supporting farm workers.
Sure, there were a couple of angry people who were still not satisfied, and there are probably unpleasant longer-term consequences with potential future advertisers that they will have to deal with. But, in large part because they pay careful and compassionate attention to their community, you could see that the bulk of the community immediately jumped back on board.
Do not let Trump erode your sense of what is right for your product, company, and community. The dark side, after all, is not more powerful – only easier and more seductive.
I don't disagree with you but it's a sad state of things.
Wish bigwigs would keep it brief and to the point. This was all I need to
hear:
> official broadcasts [should] remain focused on the game and are not a > platform for divisive social or political views.
Same goes with NFL and the kneeling. Just say "hey, we're a business" and leave it at that. Hate all the moralizing.
> official broadcasts [should] remain focused on the game and are not a > platform for divisive social or political views.
Same goes with NFL and the kneeling. Just say "hey, we're a business" and leave it at that. Hate all the moralizing.
You do realize that "our profit is more important than your people dying" is also moralizing, right?
You can argue Blizzard puts profits over free expression (every company does
to varying degrees). It's absurd to say the kid's obtuse outburst, if left
uncensured, saves lives.
It's really not. If no one makes a stink about HK publically, China can get away with awful things there. You can't be shy about calling out tyrants.
> (every company does to varying degrees).
That is where the problem comes in, it isn't a single censored outburst by a single player and not a single company doing the censoring. China is using that uncaring greed to ensure that these protests are censored on a larger scale.
That is where the problem comes in, it isn't a single censored outburst by a single player and not a single company doing the censoring. China is using that uncaring greed to ensure that these protests are censored on a larger scale.
Brack's statement is close to 1,000 words. My tiny brain gets indignant when it has to focus that long on something so mealy-mouthed.
That response would unequivocally make the situation worse.
This new language of mind-bending corporate doublespeak deserves more parody.
Can’t they just admit they like money more than free speech or democracy?
I feel like this is Activision and not Blizzard talking.
I feel like this is Joshua and not Josh talking.
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.
It’s depressing how stupid he thinks we are.
It’s depressing how stupid he thinks we are.
Swing and a miss
"We don't want to lose money from the Chinese market, but we also don't want to lose money from the American market, we're not really sure what to do and have no moral guidance on the situation, will you accept this double-talk and continue paying us?"
TLDR: not an apology
The publicity this is getting is amazing.
I wonder if protesters supporting Catalonia, Cuba, Venezuela, Kashmir, Sudan, Indonesia, or Palestine did this, if it would get more attention than a single article or thread?
Heck, 100 people have been killed in the current Iraq protests and there are less articles and outrage compared to this. Maybe future protests will focus on getting punishments from large companies? Perhaps this is the start of a new type of activism.
I wonder if protesters supporting Catalonia, Cuba, Venezuela, Kashmir, Sudan, Indonesia, or Palestine did this, if it would get more attention than a single article or thread?
Heck, 100 people have been killed in the current Iraq protests and there are less articles and outrage compared to this. Maybe future protests will focus on getting punishments from large companies? Perhaps this is the start of a new type of activism.
tl;dr
Our top analysts have determined that the amount of money lost by people being upset about this is still less than the amount we would lose by losing business with China.
They didn’t. They didn’t receive any punishment, they were immediately moved on to the next match.
So, Blizzard is not acting any anything resembling consistently on this matter. Some voices matter more than others; in this case Blizzard’s business with China has proven to matter more than allowing someone to “share their point of view”.
#boycottblizzard still stands.