Gamers for Freedom: A handbook for protesting at this year's Blizzcon
docs.google.com
docs.google.com
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.
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...
Instead, the topic is censorship.
Censorship does not need to have anything to do with the 1st amendment.
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).
Just like how you can't post certain types of content on YouTube/Instagram/name your social media.
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.
If you want to get mad at other studios as well, then go ahead!
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.
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.
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.
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?
The Chinese social media statement was from NetEase, and Blizzard may or may not have had any say in that.
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.
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?
Because imagination overrides precedent?
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.
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.
They then also banned future livestream footage from the entire Collegiate format.
Define foreign. Not american does not mean foreign for huge multinational corporations.
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".
A boycott would get results, this just gets clicks.
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.
> 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.
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?
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!
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.
>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.
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).
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.
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.”
As such I don't think they have to rely solely on google docs to publish their stuff.