Hacker News Reader

Comment by MBCook | Hacker News Reader

> The reality is that corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints

But they MUST. That’s the issue. There is no such thing as remaining neutral.

What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? Now the west is mad and boycotting.

NOT ban the player? Now China is pissed and kicking you out of the country.

They were damned by someone either way. There was no neutral political stance they could take. International politics is just setup that way. Total neutrality doesn’t exist on that stage.

View on HN

Exactly. The problem here isn't that Blizzard is taking sides in international conflicts. The problem is that Blizzard, an American company, is taking China's side in an international conflict.

Precisely. Don't want to be involved in international politics? Fine - don't involve yourself in international commerce, either.

The comment you're replying to is suggesting a way to prevent a PR crisis like this, not a way to escape an ongoing crisis.

It's hard to deny that there would be a much smaller PR issue here if the player had been prevented from voicing any opinion on Hong Kong in the first place.

But that wouldn’t be neutral either. It would clearly be favoring a side (and may have backfired when it came out).

>But they MUST. That’s the issue.

Then what is the right answer? HK independence?

>There is no such thing as remaining neutral.

Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral? What position should a corporation take and which controversial topics? How about the IOC? Or FIFA? Or some charity? Or the EU? I don't see European nations, for example, taking any steps to challenge China. I don't see the public boycotting Chinese goods. Why would you expect a video game company to do so?

Do you honestly want a video game company to take a position on every single controversial topic .... of which there are thousands? Or only on the ones that you find particularly important?

>What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy?

No. Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.

> Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.

In both those cases, though, that's still taking an action that supports one side and affronts the other. "Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action.

And, of course, there's an argument to be made that even doing that is effectively "taking a side," right? Because your (lack of) action still implicitly supports one side and affronts the other. Maybe letting players kneel during the anthem does piss off half your fan base, but explicitly banning them from kneeling pisses off the other half of your fan base.

As much as Rush lyrics may be the last refuge of scoundrels, there's a lot of truth in "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

>n both those cases, though, that's still taking an action

No. That is insane.

Being neutral is not the same as taking an action. I know we live in a twitter world where everything is black or white but you don't get to create a false dichotomy of "you're either with me or against me" - there is always a third choice of "I refuse to get involved".

>Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action.

You're parsing out meanings from words that aren't there. Sure Blizzard could have done nothing, but they did decide that their platform shouldn't be used to espouse political messages, even ones they may privately agree with. If you want to be pedantic that's 'taking an action', but the action is NOT "I support China", nor "I support Hong Kong protestors", but rather, "I have no position on the matter because I'm a video game company that is interested in selling video games and running StarCraft tournaments".

Why are you so intent on creating a division where there is none and forcing everyone to choose a side?

>Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral?

No, there is not. At least, not any longer. The moment a company dips their toes into the Chinese market they are getting into bed with an oppressive, authoritarian regime who dictates the rules of conduct. This on turn forces companies like Blizzard to play along with the CCP lest they lose revenue.

There is no neutral; the CCP forces you to chose a side, and Blizzard chose as soon as they entered the Chinese market.

>The moment a company dips their toes into the Chinese market they are getting into bed with an oppressive, authoritarian regime who dictates the rules of conduct.

And what does it mean for YOU to buy chinese or chinese-made products, or products made by companies that also sell in China. Are you in bed with the CCP?

>There is no neutral;

Yes there is. Why are you so intent on forcing a false dichotomy?

I don't have a strong opinion on what's happening in Hong Kong and I was actually in HK during the July protests. The city looked like any other city with people doing regular city things like shopping, taking the subway and going to work. How am I supposed to take a side when I don't even know what the population of HK (not just the protestors) actually want. Any position I take will be out of ignorance, is that better than being neutral?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com