Gamers for Freedom: A handbook for protesting at this year's Blizzcon(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
Gamers for Freedom: A handbook for protesting at this year's Blizzcon
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P6VXEB-0ICNuBGWQInj_QaFaD2t62ACWPeYVG9ujpTQ
85 comments
I recommend reading up on the history of Free Speech in America. You'll find that all of these issues and more have already been thoroughly discussed in the last 400 years of liberal society.
Political speech is protected, but your right to say you're going to go to someone's house and kill their whole family is generally not protected.
It's pretty clear that Blizzard was not following their own guidebook here. I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". The banning was only because it was anti china. An anti-Spain statement would have just resulted in some scratching of heads, not a 1 year suspension and revoking of prize money.
Political speech is protected, but your right to say you're going to go to someone's house and kill their whole family is generally not protected.
It's pretty clear that Blizzard was not following their own guidebook here. I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". The banning was only because it was anti china. An anti-Spain statement would have just resulted in some scratching of heads, not a 1 year suspension and revoking of prize money.
It's worth noting that while your description of free speech in the USA is somewhat accurate, the USA actually has extremely relaxed restrictions for speech advocating violence. The current federal standard is "imminent lawless action," which means that speech cannot be restricted unless the violence it's advocating is likely to happen immediately. As far as I can tell, you can freely broadcast speech of the form "let's get together sometime and do a bunch of violence against so-and-so." This comes from a Supreme Court case about a Ku Klux Klan rally where the leader addressed the group and literally advocated organized violence against minorities for political purposes (what many would call terrorism).
That's not the only exception. You can't make "true threats." There are laws against conspiracy to commit crimes, which you might have described ("let's get together sometime") in your example.
Conspiracy requires more than speech. Two accountants who agree over drinks that "the shareholders are assholes, we should defraud them!" are not commiting a crime until they take some action past speech alone. Based on a quick Google search of the legal elements of conspiracy crimes, you need an actual agreement/plan to commit a crime and some consummating act that shows intent to follow through.
Point being, these aren't really speech restrictions.
Apparently not, see U.S. v. Shabini, so an overt act requirement isn't a consequence of the 1st Amendment rule; just many laws (but not all) happen to require one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani
> It's pretty clear that Blizzard was not following their own guidebook here. I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". The banning was only because it was anti china. An anti-Spain statement would have just resulted in some scratching of heads, not a 1 year suspension and revoking of prize money.
As far as I've read (which is basically nothing but https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=48310 ), the response to blitzchung came from NetEase, Blizzard's legally-required publisher/distributor in China. Unlike Blizzard, NetEase is a Chinese company.
It seems unsurprising that the Chinese distributor for Hearthstone would react like a Chinese company -- that's the point of the requirement. Was Blizzard even consulted on the response?
As far as I've read (which is basically nothing but https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=48310 ), the response to blitzchung came from NetEase, Blizzard's legally-required publisher/distributor in China. Unlike Blizzard, NetEase is a Chinese company.
It seems unsurprising that the Chinese distributor for Hearthstone would react like a Chinese company -- that's the point of the requirement. Was Blizzard even consulted on the response?
I think you're misreading that article. There is no question that suspending Blitzchung and stripping him of his prize money was done by Blizzard, not NetEase.
The Chinese social media statement was from NetEase, and Blizzard may or may not have had any say in that.
The Chinese social media statement was from NetEase, and Blizzard may or may not have had any say in that.
The NetEase statement details what the punishment will be. (It is explicitly set in the future.)
I'm quite willing to believe that NetEase made that statement only after discussing the punishment with Blizzard, or hearing an official public statement from Blizzard, or some such. But (and again, I am not informed on the topic) I'd also be willing to believe otherwise.
I'm quite willing to believe that NetEase made that statement only after discussing the punishment with Blizzard, or hearing an official public statement from Blizzard, or some such. But (and again, I am not informed on the topic) I'd also be willing to believe otherwise.
Blizzard presumably has control of their own checkbook.
They didn't just ban him from playing in China. Some of the tournaments he participated in were in other countries, like Singapore.
To suggest that China should be able to cause a US company to ban a player from playing in Singapore... it's silly. Does Blizzard run it's own company or is it run by the Chinese Government?
They didn't just ban him from playing in China. Some of the tournaments he participated in were in other countries, like Singapore.
To suggest that China should be able to cause a US company to ban a player from playing in Singapore... it's silly. Does Blizzard run it's own company or is it run by the Chinese Government?
[deleted]
> I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!".
Because imagination overrides precedent?
Because imagination overrides precedent?
Sure, when did Blizzard ban a pro player for making a pro-Catalan statement? Or censor any references to the Spanish Inquisition, and other Spanish atrocities?
Because they sure do that sort of thing for China... Imagination isn't required, you can just look at the world and see that China gets special treatment.
Because they sure do that sort of thing for China... Imagination isn't required, you can just look at the world and see that China gets special treatment.
From what I can tell, if you read purely on rhetoric, it isn't contradictory- it states moderation is essential to ensure safety from harassment but that moderation should not be used for speaking about personal experiences. For example, it is essential for moderators to prevent "I am going to find where you live and hurt you" but to allow "I feel threatened".
What if my personal experiences are attending klan or nazi rallies, protests against lgbt people, what if I live in a country where it's ok to domestically abuse my spouse and that's my experience? Maybe I live in a place where it's encouraged to round up and beat minorities or gay people. Not being threatening or harassing, where would personal experiences like that fall under?
I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but that's the point about the vagueness, it leads to ridiculous interpretations that will end up still being selectively moderated in the end. Clearly stating what is and is acceptable on a platform and following it consistently removes that ambiguity and doesn't leave it up to arbitrary feelings to decide.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but that's the point about the vagueness, it leads to ridiculous interpretations that will end up still being selectively moderated in the end. Clearly stating what is and is acceptable on a platform and following it consistently removes that ambiguity and doesn't leave it up to arbitrary feelings to decide.
There's plenty of such experience to go around:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/norway-offers-migrants-a-lesson-no-r...
> The statistics are pretty straightforward, and some are outlined in the article. This is a robust and replicated dynamic in Scandinavia; people of “migrant background” are over-represented in rape statistics. It’s an open secret, in that when push come to shove the authorities tend to make excuses rather than lying about it.
> Migrants themselves can often be quite frank and astute observers of cross-cultural differences:
>> “Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
It is my understanding that people are generally discouraged from offering these personal experiences, for fear of likely public reaction, regardless of how illuminating they may be.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/norway-offers-migrants-a-lesson-no-r...
> The statistics are pretty straightforward, and some are outlined in the article. This is a robust and replicated dynamic in Scandinavia; people of “migrant background” are over-represented in rape statistics. It’s an open secret, in that when push come to shove the authorities tend to make excuses rather than lying about it.
> Migrants themselves can often be quite frank and astute observers of cross-cultural differences:
>> “Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
It is my understanding that people are generally discouraged from offering these personal experiences, for fear of likely public reaction, regardless of how illuminating they may be.
>that's enforced equally seems pretty reasonable to me
What counts as equal?
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Blizzard could create the rule "No political messages that cause a large country to ban us" and then equally enforce it by banning "Boo China" and allowing "Yay China".
As such, I don't think equal enforcement of the law gets at the root issue of China being willing to entirely ban things that make them look bad.
What counts as equal?
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Blizzard could create the rule "No political messages that cause a large country to ban us" and then equally enforce it by banning "Boo China" and allowing "Yay China".
As such, I don't think equal enforcement of the law gets at the root issue of China being willing to entirely ban things that make them look bad.
Equal in this case might be that when a Collegiate team held up a sign supporting HK, Blizzard gave them the same 6mo ban that Blitzchung eventually settled at.
They then also banned future livestream footage from the entire Collegiate format.
They then also banned future livestream footage from the entire Collegiate format.
They could just segregate their players and let the rest of the world do as it pleases.
> It still advocates censorship and doesn't get at the root of the problem that the censorship was occurring at the behest and pressure of a foreign government.
Is that actually the root of the problem? I keep reading this claim about how China supposedly strongarmed Blizzard into doing it but what evidence do we actually have for that?
Because it's not like this is unprecedented: Blizzard has been banning plenty of pro-players over voicing their particular political opinions, even when players did it on their personal streams.
The reality is very likely that Blizzard simply does not want any political speech at all, especially not on their major events. As such Blizzchung could probably also have called out Barcelona or Palestine and the result would very likely have been the same.
But because this is China, there's a whole lot of people heavily, and professionally, invested in spinning the situation as much as possible, very comparable to that whole Ubisoft situation with R6:Siege "censorship".
Is that actually the root of the problem? I keep reading this claim about how China supposedly strongarmed Blizzard into doing it but what evidence do we actually have for that?
Because it's not like this is unprecedented: Blizzard has been banning plenty of pro-players over voicing their particular political opinions, even when players did it on their personal streams.
The reality is very likely that Blizzard simply does not want any political speech at all, especially not on their major events. As such Blizzchung could probably also have called out Barcelona or Palestine and the result would very likely have been the same.
But because this is China, there's a whole lot of people heavily, and professionally, invested in spinning the situation as much as possible, very comparable to that whole Ubisoft situation with R6:Siege "censorship".
>pressure of a foreign government
Define foreign. Not american does not mean foreign for huge multinational corporations.
Define foreign. Not american does not mean foreign for huge multinational corporations.
"From another country", which is indeed "not American" in this case. Activision is Delaware corp, headquartered in Santa Monica. Blizzard developed Hearthstone in Irvine, CA. I think it reasonable to consider China a foreign government in this context.
Moderation != censorship.
No, but selective moderation based on unclear inconsistent guidelines is. Look at hn, I'd say it's heavily moderated, but the guidelines are clear and the moderation is mostly consistent. When accounts and comments get banned or killed here, it's usually obvious how the guidelines were broken, most of the time.
in most cases, and certainly within the context of online discussions, moderation is explicitly censorship.
Sigh.
Where is this armchair analysis coming from? Are you American? If so, do you understand the 1st amendment and what it protects?
It doesn't protect me saying "I'm going to kill you tonight, in your house, get ready" or "Hey everyone, there is a fire in the room!" when there isn't.
Not all verbal speech is speech. Not all removal of content is censorship, in the context of free speech.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
Where is this armchair analysis coming from? Are you American? If so, do you understand the 1st amendment and what it protects?
It doesn't protect me saying "I'm going to kill you tonight, in your house, get ready" or "Hey everyone, there is a fire in the room!" when there isn't.
Not all verbal speech is speech. Not all removal of content is censorship, in the context of free speech.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
Censorship has more contexts than just government-protected free public speech. Maybe this doesn't fit the definition of censorship under the context you are framing the term, but it definitely does under other contexts of the term.
Considering this entire discussion is about the censorship/moderation of content with the intent to suppress political speech, I think it is important to be clear. Also, most people don't use the term "censorship" when they talk about moderating forums. It is as radical as saying "taxation = theft".
Nobody said anything about the 1st amendment.
Instead, the topic is censorship.
Censorship does not need to have anything to do with the 1st amendment.
Instead, the topic is censorship.
Censorship does not need to have anything to do with the 1st amendment.
The fire in crowded theatre comment is kind of a tell that you dont actually know what the history of is and limits are on free speech in the US. It was a comment from the 1920s prior to the dismantling of restrictions on free speech over the next 90 years of court rulings. Plus it may actually be protected speech.
Literally from the link I posted, a federal government website:
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
“Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” was a metaphor for protesting the draft during WWI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
That might be a federal website but it was never prevailing supreme court opinion, even when the judge wrote it.
Sure it is. A censor exists to make sure you don't produce content that the community doesn't like. That's what a moderator does, too.
Blizzard is a private company and if they want to moderate/censor certain content on their platforms it is totally up to them. This really isn't a free speech issue.
Just like how you can't post certain types of content on YouTube/Instagram/name your social media.
Just like how you can't post certain types of content on YouTube/Instagram/name your social media.
They are free to do so, and society is free to retaliate against them, and senators are free to send threats to them, about what future action that they might take against blizzard.
So Blizzard must be forced to allow political speech and protesting on their platform... a company that makes video games?
> So Blizzard must be forced to allow political speech
They can do whatever they want.
And other are free to retaliate against them.
Freedom means that both sides are free to do this. It is a consumer's absolute right to retaliate in this way.
They can do whatever they want.
And other are free to retaliate against them.
Freedom means that both sides are free to do this. It is a consumer's absolute right to retaliate in this way.
[deleted]
So we're only supposed to get upset at Blizzard right? Or should us morally rightious folk be boycotting every studio owned by Activision?
Blizzard was the one who was most recently involved in this decision specifically. So it makes some sense to definitely get mad at them.
If you want to get mad at other studios as well, then go ahead!
If you want to get mad at other studios as well, then go ahead!
[deleted]
No, but people are free to protest their lousy behavior.
Blizzard is motivated by money, that seems to be the chief complaint: Blizzard behaves on the basis of profitability rather than morality. So why would a moral appeal have any effect?
A boycott would get results, this just gets clicks.
A boycott would get results, this just gets clicks.
A moral appeal is the method of getting more people on board, to support whatever actions against blizzard that they are trying to achieve.
> whatever actions against blizzard that they are trying to achieve
That is what seems so hackneyed about this. This is like doing marketing for “whatever product we decide to sell”. The goal should be defined first.
What would be too little from Blizzard? What would be a “good” response? When would it be too late? What exactly do these people actually want Blizzard to do?
This Google doc is an attention-seeker’s manifesto; it is highly inflammatory and uses emotionally provocative language about rights and freedom and doing the right thing, yet it avoids being too specific so that Blizzard cannot win because they cannot discern what response the protesters want.
That is what seems so hackneyed about this. This is like doing marketing for “whatever product we decide to sell”. The goal should be defined first.
What would be too little from Blizzard? What would be a “good” response? When would it be too late? What exactly do these people actually want Blizzard to do?
This Google doc is an attention-seeker’s manifesto; it is highly inflammatory and uses emotionally provocative language about rights and freedom and doing the right thing, yet it avoids being too specific so that Blizzard cannot win because they cannot discern what response the protesters want.
> The goal should be defined first.
> What would be too little from Blizzard? What would be a “good” response? When would it be too late? What exactly do these people actually want Blizzard to do?
I'll give a solution. They should completely reverse every punishment that they made, against everyone, get rid of any "rules" they had that caused these punishments, and do not enforce this in the future.
And if they received any communications from the Chinese government, then they should publish it all, and they should say that they will never give in to any explicit or implicit pressure from them.
And they get bonus points, if they do stuff like create Mei Li, pro Hong Kong skins for overwatch.
Doing this stuff would absolutely make all the protesters happy.
> What would be too little from Blizzard? What would be a “good” response? When would it be too late? What exactly do these people actually want Blizzard to do?
I'll give a solution. They should completely reverse every punishment that they made, against everyone, get rid of any "rules" they had that caused these punishments, and do not enforce this in the future.
And if they received any communications from the Chinese government, then they should publish it all, and they should say that they will never give in to any explicit or implicit pressure from them.
And they get bonus points, if they do stuff like create Mei Li, pro Hong Kong skins for overwatch.
Doing this stuff would absolutely make all the protesters happy.
>get rid of any "rules" they had that caused these punishments, and do not enforce this in the future.
Great, I cannot wait to see all the political speeches while trying to catch some esports or sports. If you're an (e-)athlete, what better time and place to let the world know about your feelings on MAGA, ICE camps other than broadcasts of your gameplay?
Great, I cannot wait to see all the political speeches while trying to catch some esports or sports. If you're an (e-)athlete, what better time and place to let the world know about your feelings on MAGA, ICE camps other than broadcasts of your gameplay?
Go ahead! That is great that you agree on this!
Also, people are more than just their gameplay in a specific game. There are storylines, and personal developments, and lots and lots of things related to players that do not have anything to do with who won or lost in a game.
If someone has politics as a big part of their identity, I don't see why it would be wierd to talk about it. Just like any other big part of someone's identity that has nothing to do with the game.
Also, people are more than just their gameplay in a specific game. There are storylines, and personal developments, and lots and lots of things related to players that do not have anything to do with who won or lost in a game.
If someone has politics as a big part of their identity, I don't see why it would be wierd to talk about it. Just like any other big part of someone's identity that has nothing to do with the game.
I am eagerly awaiting participant advocacy for a free Ireland/Palestine/Kashmir/weev at the next annual StarCraft tournament.
Awesome! Me too.
I love knowing more specific details and storylines, related to an individual person.
This is true for real sports. People have lots of details about them that aren't directly related to the game.
And I am glad that you are also as excited as I am to see these personal storylines play out!
I love knowing more specific details and storylines, related to an individual person.
This is true for real sports. People have lots of details about them that aren't directly related to the game.
And I am glad that you are also as excited as I am to see these personal storylines play out!
Multinational Corporations like Bayer, IBM, and Mercedes-Benz collaborated with the Nazis. This is nothing new. The real question is: What are we gonna do about it?
>This Google doc is an attention-seeker’s manifesto; it is highly inflammatory and uses emotionally provocative language about rights and freedom and doing the right thing, yet it avoids being too specific so that Blizzard cannot win because they cannot discern what response the protesters want.
This reminds me of the critiques of Occupy Wall Street. "It's not specific enough! We don't know what they want." 9 years later and we sure do now. The goal is not to "win" with Blizzard. The goal is public humiliation and economic punishment for those who enable genocide.
>This Google doc is an attention-seeker’s manifesto; it is highly inflammatory and uses emotionally provocative language about rights and freedom and doing the right thing, yet it avoids being too specific so that Blizzard cannot win because they cannot discern what response the protesters want.
This reminds me of the critiques of Occupy Wall Street. "It's not specific enough! We don't know what they want." 9 years later and we sure do now. The goal is not to "win" with Blizzard. The goal is public humiliation and economic punishment for those who enable genocide.
Open protests at Blizzcon will do an immense amount of financial damage to Blizzard-Activision. At an absolute minimum, they will reduce the return from a massive publicity exercise.
Likely outcomes include damaging future sales of anything that gets revealed/promoted at Blizzcon, increasing awareness of the boycott and the reasons for it, and forcing Blizzard to anger both Blizzard fans (from Blizzard's own probably over-reaction to protesters) and the Chinese government (who are going to be unhappy about any level of protest).
Likely outcomes include damaging future sales of anything that gets revealed/promoted at Blizzcon, increasing awareness of the boycott and the reasons for it, and forcing Blizzard to anger both Blizzard fans (from Blizzard's own probably over-reaction to protesters) and the Chinese government (who are going to be unhappy about any level of protest).
Perhaps the protest is a prelude of a potential future boycott.
It is our role to align morality and profits.
Censoring speech should make them lose more money than disobeying China.
Starcraft 1 was the first game I bought. I love their games. I think this will make me boycott there for at least 5 or 10 years even if they correct their course now.
Censoring speech should make them lose more money than disobeying China.
Starcraft 1 was the first game I bought. I love their games. I think this will make me boycott there for at least 5 or 10 years even if they correct their course now.
I love they can just use google docs and publish a "site" like this so easily to share. No html required. I hope Google doesn't start getting political and pulling these kinds of docs.
Their website [0] was registered and online 4 days after it happened.
As such I don't think they have to rely solely on google docs to publish their stuff.
[0] https://www.gamersforfreedom.com/
As such I don't think they have to rely solely on google docs to publish their stuff.
[0] https://www.gamersforfreedom.com/
It sort of relies on the goodwill of Google’s excess server capacity when the document becomes popular, but I think it’s a small price to pay in showing solidarity.
Plus in many ways, it’s also free advertisement for Docs and Google as a whole. “Our platform is so scalable, we can easily make a single Google Doc support the web traffic of almost the entire internet.”
Plus in many ways, it’s also free advertisement for Docs and Google as a whole. “Our platform is so scalable, we can easily make a single Google Doc support the web traffic of almost the entire internet.”
Anyone know why Blizzard is under fire but Apple isn't?
I think there is a difference between obeying Chinese censorship in China (which tech companies do routinely even if Google resisted valiantly at first) and helping China spread its censorship oversea (which is what the Blizz and NBA things are about).
Should be both.
Gamer communities are fickle things prone to outrage and shitstorms.
Because a vocal minority makes a lot of noise.
TPO.
It's going to be entertaining this year if nothing else.
tekproxy(5)
[deleted]
I don't agree with blizzard but this statement really appears contradictory to me. It still advocates censorship and doesn't get at the root of the problem that the censorship was occurring at the behest and pressure of a foreign government. Personally, I think clearly written rules about what is and isn't allowable in a platform, that's enforced equally seems pretty reasonable to me. Enforcing speech selectively, with no clear guidelines will still lead to problems.