Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments - <AUTHOR> https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/23179289/ <comment><USER7> This is a very specific instance of a much more general problem.

A lot of private companies control exclusive access to something with a value that dwarfs what you pay for it. I pay nothing for access to Twitter; if I build a business or a social life on the platform, it becomes something I would pay thousands of dollars to prevent losing. I pay nothing for access to Facebook; the memories they store at this point in my life may be nearly priceless. I've paid a low triple digit sum for Blizzard games, yet the time and social investments I have made in those games make them a couple of orders of magnitude more valuable to me, now.

The problem is that since these companies control services so valuable to me, anyone who wishes to hurt me for any reason can do it through them. Since no one is paying them to defend me -- I'm certainly not -- they have no resources commensurate with the value of what they're defending.

The situation we're in now is one in which political thugs apply pressure to private companies to hurt individuals, in an attempt to chill free speech.

Free speech is expensive and valuable, and defending it from those who would wish to destroy it requires commensurate resources. We should not expect Blizzard to stand up to the Chinese government; that is the job of the Chinese people, of other goverments, of perhaps the whole world.

To my view, Blizzard is like a store clerk who gives up the store's money to a robber. It would be nice if he was a hero, but he's not equipped for it. Nobody is paying 7-11 to stand up to violent crime. The problem is too big and expensive to ask individuals to deal with. Society paying for police and courts is at least a response on the right scale.

The mechanisms we have for protecting individual rights are antiquaited, and need to be rethought to deal with the current situation. Perhaps a model like the unified response to patent trolls could work? I think, if we want free speech to exist in the current environment, it will have to be something that big.

<comment><USER8> Mostly playing devil's advocate here:

When the Constitution was written, free speech meant literally that, your ability to go to a public space and physically talk. No third party was involved as it is with any telecommunication technology. So the resources consumed in that speech were totally your own.

The only way to strictly have that equivalent in the telecommunications realm is for me to own every communication circuit between me and those who I want to communicate with.

So lets say I have 10 wires coming from my house to other houses, and someone I know has 10 other wires connected to a different set of houses, that I'm not directly connected to.

I can rely on my own self and build new wires (expensive) or I can work with this person to forward my communication (probably cheaper but he/she can view/hear my communication).

If I want to communicate with someone else beyond my network, then a third party is carrying my speech, and we're really no longer in realm of free speech. This third party has rights and should be able to refuse to carry my speech for the same rights and reasons as me, unless entered into a contract beforehand.

I think your real question is should corporations be treated as legal persons to the extent that they have the Constitutional right of speech.

<comment><USER9> >When the Constitution was written,

They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are.

The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

<comment><USER10> Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement!

People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

<comment><USER11> > People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it > certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece.

I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.

<comment><USER10> And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750.

Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.

<comment><USER11> Freedom of speech is not permanent. It has to continually be demanded, or it disappears. There will always be people trying to tell you what to do or say. If you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it safe to say we're in the middle of the Software Wars? The headlines have been littered with stories like this lately. From major open source contributors taking down their projects, to Apple, Adobe, and Blizzard.

It's only a matter of time until it's a critical piece of software that can cripple a nation or beleaguer it's people.

If you're looking for positives, maybe this will finally force people to rethink digital ownership.

<comment><USER13> It's serendipitous all these events are happening now for me personally. I was recently burned by a piece of very useful and well crafted software (closed source). I did a fresh install on my machine and went to find their website which to my dismay had completely disappeared! I followed whatever breadcrumbs were left and found a whole thing had happened while I wasn't paying attention where the copyright for this software was now in complete limbo and noone who had recently purchased a license could redownload it.

This is allegedly where the software exists now.

[https://audiofile.engineering/](https://audiofile.engineering/)

Which contains absolutely no trace of the program Myriad Pro.

This is the discussion from kvr about it.

[https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=525534](https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=525534)

On the plus side I doubled down and learned SoX which I wrap up in some python now and it's fast, open source and others can develop on my efforts.

<comment><USER14> Same thing happened with Tridef. The company went under, didn't release a free version of the software, and now people who bought it legally have to resort to using a crack.

<comment><USER15> I've said it a few times, but it's worth repeating IMO: copyright is a deal, where a creator gets a time-limited monopoly in exchange for works entering the public domain.

If a company have arranged things so their work can't enter the public domain (eg DRM) then they should not get copyright protection, fundamentally it's wrong to get the benefit of copyright without giving up your work to the public domain.

This can be solved by a requirement to register an unhindered copy, whilst they're at it orphaned works should be made copyright free, IMO.

<comment><USER16> I'm glad to hear that others have the same opinion regarding software copyrights. I'd even go one step further and say that the source code must be included in that unhindered copy. Otherwise, the public's right to make derivative works from things in the public domain cannot be upheld.

<comment><USER17> The companies will say that they're still using parts of the old code in newer products covered by copyright, so this won't happen.

Besides, we'd have to have copyright periods on software of 3-5 years, 10 tops, for software copyright to even make sense. Not 70+, which is longer than any recognizable computer industry ever existed.

<comment><USER16> I am assuming that this would be part of a wider reform of copyright. For the case you mentioned, already under current copyright law, creation of a derivative work does not prevent a work from entering into the public domain (albeit after an unconscionably long period of time). To prevent such a argument being made after the fact, source code should be placed in escrow at the time of publication, with copyright protection given only after it has been verified that the provided source code can reproduce the binary being protected.

This arrangement would also protect the public good in cases where the original company has gone bankrupt, or where the source code would otherwise have been lost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I agree 100% that we should boycott and sanction, however doubt there will be enough people who will, and enough people who care. And I don't blame most for not caring, there are more things to worry about than we have time available. Maybe 1% of hearthstone players will see your comment. Similarly, there are other entities which need to be sanctioned, which you and me won't find out about as it's outside of our areas of interest.

Which makes me believe we need some kind of trusted "morality authority", which would process information similar to this and make informed decisions who to boycott, how and when. Less informed would be able to make an impact without having to do research (which not everyone would do equally well)

Obviously this authority must operate with complete transparency, so that we could verify its decision process when required.

Any hostile actions against it must be treated as a crime against humanity?

Somehow it must be immune from corruption. Perhaps some mechanism to revoke user trust in case of wrongdoings.

<comment><USER19> "I agree 100% that we should boycott and sanction, however doubt there will be enough people who will, and enough people who care. And I don't blame most for not caring, there are more things to worry about than we have time available."

Wait, what? A boycott is _not_ doing something. It takes no time, you just choose to do something different, _and let people know why you made the choice._ I stopped playing Hearthstone, and let people know why. Cake, no time. Same for NBA, which I love, so I hope they'll pull their head out, but again, no time involved here.

Boycotting is the easiest form of protest. Don't be...lazy?

<comment><USER20> No, boycotting something entails changing your lifestyle to avoid something. For hearthstone players, that means stop partaking in one of their hobbies.

You aren't boycotting something because you are quitting it, anyways.

Also, you're kinda doing the thing where you go "Ugh, it's so easy, c'mon people! I never even played Heartstone in my life. See? It's not that hard to quit over moral principals!"

<comment><USER19> I have over 500 hours in Hearthstone. I played it on Saturday. It was my main online game. I haven't played it since.

And yes, it's still an easy call. I was in Hong Kong for quite a bit when I was younger. It's a glorious place. Or was, I haven't been back. I don't approve of the Chinese government, nor the United States relationship with China. We've compromised our principals for economic gain (I'm American). Hong Kong should get to stay democratic if that's their choice.

Note I was specific about disapproval of the Chinese government. The Chinese _people_ are an amazing group with a wonderful culture and I appreciate them immensely. But they are governed by communist goons.

And you're right, I'm not quitting Hearthstone. If they say something akin to what the NBA is saying now, I might consider playing again. For now, no.

edit: "say" for "stay" typo.

<comment> eric-hu Wait, did I miss something? Isn't the NBA doing the same thing as Blizzard?

<comment><USER21> Not even close. The NBA did not ban a player in response to a comment, "Commissioner says league will continue to back Morey's right to freedom of expression". Activision / Blizzard on the other hand is actively suppressing speech.

<comment><USER22> It was a really good move for the NBA, they handled it extremely well, did not spur a controversy, just let the situation be and let fans decide themselves how they want to react to it, while also upholding American values in the process, a very classy move.

<comment><USER23> I feel that American values would not be falling all over themselves to claim the NBA is an apolitical organization. Or at least the American values I was raised with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Also fired both casters working on the event, even though they did not know what was going to be said: [https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1181443974420189185](https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1181443974420189185)

<comment><USER25> This might not be true though. I have heard that during the broadcast they had been supporting Hong Kong. Not saying this is the wrong thing to do though but just a fact.

<comment><USER26> If you've just heard it that does not make it a fact just yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If you have a Blizzard account and want to cancel your account, you can do that here: [https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/2659](https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/2659)

<comment><USER28> What's hilarious is that deletion of account might require government issued photo ID.

The last step for me to stop doing business with a bad actor is by giving up my privacy.

<comment><USER29> I tried deleting my account just now and was prompted with a screen asking for it. "Might" might well be an understatement.

<comment><USER30> They even want an ID copy when revoking the right to process personal data (GDPR). Screw them. Lets upload pictures of Winnie-the-Pooh instead.

<comment><USER31> Brilliant!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> From [https://www.pcgamer.com/blitzchung-removed-from- hearthstone-...](https://www.pcgamer.com/blitzchung-removed-from-hearthstone- grandmasters-for-liberate-hong-kong-comments/) a description of the incident :

> As Andy reported earlier today, Blitzchung did not back down after the > sudden removal of the broadcast, during which he wore a gas mask and goggles > before shouting "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age!" Following the > incident he released a statement elaborating on his stance, writing "I know > what my action on stream means. It could cause me lot of trouble, even my > personal safety in real life. But I think it's my duty to say something > about the issue."

<comment><USER33> Okay that explains it. I thought banning for 12 months was a little harsh for someone making a political statement once, but he knew what he was doing and doubled down on it.

<comment><USER34> Why does the fact that the person making a political statement knew that they were making a political statement make their banning okay?

<comment><USER35> There's a difference between accidentally and knowingly breaking a rule. Regardless of if you feel the rule is fair or right, knowingly breaking is more egregious, e.g. manslaughter is not as bad as first or second degree murder.

<comment><USER36> Knowing that you're doing something that is not in the interest of Blizzard or China and may bring you trouble is not the same thing as rule-breaking.

For example, I have a first amendment right to stand on the street and cry out "that store over there has awful working conditions," and I'm not breaking any rules, but I'm well aware that the store may well not let me in anymore.

<comment><USER37> More like you go in the middle of the street and say, America shouldn't support south american dictators, and as a result all ISPs refuse you provide you with internet service. They're private companies they have the right do to so but good luck navigating todays world with out it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> People should start boycotting western companies that perform this kind of humiliating bowing to China, Saudi Arabia, etc. Yet of course, most companies are doing that...

<comment><USER39> I thought Western companies had to pursue profits at all costs? China is a big juicy market.

<comment><USER40> I expect companies to do what's morally right not merely maximize profits while doing anything that is legally acceptable. I expect leaders of companies to do what's morally right while explaining to shareholders that if they disagree they can sell their shares or replace them. I have zero respect for a manager at Blizzard or the NBA who decides to try to pull what they did this week.

<comment><USER41> Except in many cases they are _legally required_ to maximize profits, regardless of ethics, so long as their actions are strictly legal.

<comment><USER42> It is part of our moral duty to punish a company for ignoring public good rather than excuse it as what a company must do. That's because if a company is punished financially (say by boycott) for making immoral decisions then they must follow a more moral course to maximize their profit.

Personally I don't think this is enough especially as companies become more pervasive and the confusion of subsidiaries which make it next to impossible to boycott the largest offenders, but that is fixed in the political sphere rather than the economic one.

I'd even expect the 'correct' long term 'required' choice for blizzard is to ignore any blow back and focus on the Chinese market. Still in this case shareholder focus being all about current quarter profits might help as company leadership might be more focused on keeping the shareholders happy than serving long term profit.

<comment><USER41> I agree. My point is that holding companies liable to an ever-shifting window of public opinion about their actions is not as long-term a solution as addressing the parts of the system that encourage or require their behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Interesting how an incidence in gaming garner more eye balls on the topic of Hong Kong politics than whole month combined. [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=hong%20kong&sort=byDate&type=story)

Good for the people of Hong Kong.

The topic of Hong Kong didn't struck me as sensational/desperate as it deserves until a Hong Kong friend send me this video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yXTHODE24Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yXTHODE24Q) Am moved by the clip, especially for the first 50s. It is english sub-ed. Would recommend anyone interested in the topic give it a look

<comment><USER44> In the video at mark 01:16 [https://youtu.be/0yXTHODE24Q?t=84](https://youtu.be/0yXTHODE24Q?t=84) there is a quote about "non-believers". Does the chinese government have anything against atheists in their policies ? To my knowledge chinese government does not interfere in personal religious beliefs.

<comment><USER45> I interpreted "non believers" to be "not believing in the party" not "not believing in religion".

"the Chinese government doesn't interfere in personal religious beliefs" is quite the claim though, considering they literally have concentration camps full of Muslims.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's a shame but I feel like the majority of gamers won't care. They'll either be ignorant of this or they'll just shrug and continue playing. I boycotted Activision and by proxy Blizzard when Activision acquired them a long time ago but their continuing success shows I'm part of an extremely tiny minority.

<comment><USER47> At this point it goes far beyond just gamers. From the NBA to Google, this effect is everywhere. To be explicit, the effect is U.S. firms letting China dictate what they do or do not care about on a global political scale.

<comment><USER48> > From the NBA to Google

You probably want to use a different example than Google here. Particularly since Google doesn't have a China presence because they refused to censor search results, and relationships there still appear to be less than solid to say the least. Your statement works with most U.S. firms, but very much doesn't at all for Google in particular.

<comment><USER49> Goog has research labs in SH and elsewhere.

<comment><USER48> And yet they still have no consumer products in China, and still redirect search to Hong Kong, and still do not participate in any censorship efforts.

This should be applauded and supported, since it's pretty much what people want others like Blizzard to do as well. Google is much closer to a gold standard to follow with their approach to China than they are to being lumped in with the NBA or Blizzard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not.

No easy answers. In this case, maybe there is a relatively simple rule: Supporting democracy must not in itself be regarded as offensive...

<comment><USER51> I think perhaps the more important point is that one should not be prevented from voicing an offensive opinion. If you look very hard in an extremely boring place, e.g. a phone directory, you might just by chance perhaps find something that won't be offensive to anyone on this Earth. Outside of contrived scenarios, the moment we let "being offended" be the watermark of censoring ideas, we might as well pack up the idea of freedom altogether.

E.g. I don't agree with Trump's policies, I generally disagree on most topics with his voters, but I wholeheartedly support their right to voice their opinions. I want them to voice their opinions, even if sometimes they will result in rules that I dislike. I'm too terrified of the alternative where a certain group is not allowed to participate.

In an open society, there can and should be heated debates, sides that stand firm behind their beliefs and everyone should be prepared to fight (in debate) for what they deem important. Crucially however, no debate should be won by silencing the other side through decree.

It is easy to handwave this case away as fringe, but it is only fringe inasmuch as you only see the tip of an iceberg. As other posts have pointed out, this seemingly low impact act by Blizzard is actually a sign of a cultural collision.

Where the culture of open dispute and free expression of ideas is met with a closed and conformist culture of be silent or be silenced by force.

We must fight back against this problem every time it surfaces, because the moment we stop, we lose. Whenever it becomes normalized and accepted that corporations that arose from the support and foundations of a free society can turn on those principles whenever they deem profitable, we lose a bit of those freedoms.

If history is of any indication, freedoms once lost this way can only ever bought back by bloodshed.

<comment><USER52> I agree in principle, although in practice this is impossible to be preached. In China it's that political opinions aren't tolerated, especially anything that notes on the edge of separatism. In America it's the same, certain racial, gender chats are simply taboo, whether it's personal or national level. While there is no explicit governmental prosecution, you can be sure that you'll be punished in a way.

The idea is that in America such topics are prohibits because there is the idea of historical injustice and bringing everyone to a fair level for a "better society" (very well-intended). It is no different in China when political topics bring an uprising flux of emotion from within the Chinese people (also very well-intended in the context of Chinese legacy). There is no fundamental difference, only a difference in how the freedom of expression is backed by historical context and reigning ideology.

<comment><USER50> You confuse state prosecution with private consequences.

A right to Free Speech can only protect you from government sanctions. How other private parties react to your "taboo" opinions cannot be legislated.

And I'd like to break a lance for "political correctness" here. Hate speech and offensive language in general do make a public or private space uncomfortable for certain people. Not all of this can be avoided, but in the case of race and gender, those who feel offended can't really change their offendedness. And because those people are usually a minority, it is usually someone else who steps up to the task of defending such a space.

Unfortunately, an aggressive climate fueled by hate speech leads to worse consequences than offended feelings. So, in many cases, why not avoid offending people? And in many cases at issue, the main motivation of the offenders is the offending, not what they believe is the "truth".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> So we are at the point where American video game developers are banning people from e-sports competitions for their comments over a domestic issue in a foreign country? Because the Chinese government probably didn't like his comments, that counts as 'public disrepute'? This is just wild to me.

<comment><USER54> It is wild, but it's also part of their own rules: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGVTuRlXkAA0ovF?format=png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGVTuRlXkAA0ovF?format=png)

Honest question: Can we call this unfair if it was already laid out as part of their rules?

<comment><USER55> Yes. You presuppose that all rules - via their nature of being rules - <USER2> automatically fair. They aren't. _Especially_ not if they're not arrived at by consensus, but unilaterally laid out.

<comment><USER56> Creating rules by consensus is actually a terrible way to ensure that those with views counter to the majority are treated fairly.

<comment><USER55> It works better than _fiat_ rules. That's kind of why we have democracies. (Well, not in China. So maybe that's the point)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> This is really unfortunate. I don't game a ton, but when I do I pretty much only play Starcraft or Overwatch. Long time fan of the GSL as well.

I know it's nothing but a drop in the bucket but I will no longer support Blizzard - time to find another game.

Perhaps we should organize a day of protest across all blizzard games.

I think it's pretty telling that I don't feel comfortable posting this on my main account.

<comment><USER58> Or, you know, gamers need to grow some moral principles and stop giving companies like this money. I already didn't like where Blizzard was going, this seals it for me. I'm not giving them any more money.

<comment><USER57> Fortunately the games mentioned don't require any money other than the initial upfront cost, hence the protest. Protesting could also vastly raise queue times, making the experience i enjoyable for many.

But I agree, I'll never spend another $ on anything blizzard unless they take a different stand on the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I really don't like how this is made out as "China clamping down on Blizzard", just like it was framed when Ubisoft tried to get a lower age-rating for Rainbow Six Siege and claimed that was what China demanded for their market.

Blizzard has been suspending plenty of pro players in plenty of their games for all kinds of questionable, and not so questionable reasons.

And because Blizzard is a private company, offering a service they maintain, they have the house right, they have the final say about who can partake and who can't.

To that end, they don't need the Chinese government to pressure them because they will already do it themselves to make their product as uncontroversial as possible. In that context politics is just not something that Blizzard, or any of the big publishers, want to be as a part of their "e-sport scene".

What they want is the least controversy possible and the lowest ages ratings possible, so they can sell their products to as many people as possible. That's their main and only motivation here, not "pleasing the CCP!".

<comment><USER39> > just like it was framed when Ubisoft tried to get a lower age-rating for > Rainbow Six Siege and claimed that was what China demanded for their market.

Ubisoft straight up said the changes were for compliance for their plans to expand into Asia. With not a single mention of a lower age-rating. [1]

> We are currently working towards preparing Rainbow Six Siege for expansion > into Asian territories. As such, there will be some adjustments made to our > maps and icons to ensure compliance.

> In addition, we can guarantee that any future changes are aligned with the > global regulations we are working towards.

While I don't agree with the gamer rage it caused, the changes were made unambiguously for release in China.

1\. [https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en- us/news/152-337194-16/...](https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en- us/news/152-337194-16/aesthetic-changes-in-y3s4)

<comment><USER59> > Ubisoft straight up said the changes were for compliance for their plans to > expand into Asia. With not a single mention of a lower age-rating.

Their very first bullet point is "A SINGLE, GLOBAL VERSION".

All the example changes they showed would very likely have lowered the game's age rating across the board, which right now is 18+, the worst possible and considered poison for sales because many parents do still care about them.

Violence removed (Germany), substance abuse removed (Australia), depictions of gambling removed (again Australia&UK). The whole package of changes had the potential to get the game rated down to something like 13 years, maybe 16 years in Germany.

You can't disregard something like that and then focus on Asian markets, while only using it as a synonym for China, as if China is the only country with these kinds of regulations.

As a German, it just irks me, when it was the norm that we would get specially censored versions of games, replacing humans with robots and making hostages in CS unkillable, there was no outrage about the authoritarian German government "forcing US companies to comply".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Some context that I think might help the discussion. Here's the clip in question:

[https://twitter.com/InvenGlobal/status/1180954142396710912](https://twitter.com/InvenGlobal/status/1180954142396710912)

Blitzchung is wearing a tear gas mask and laughingly says "reclaim Hong Kong, revolution of our time [光復香港 時代革命]" in Mandarin.

This slogan (which is also translated 'Liberate Hong Kong' or 'restore Hong Kong') is ubiquitous in the protests; you can read more about its meaning here: [https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3021518...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3021518/liberate-hong-kong-revolution-our-times-who- came-protest)

Blitzchung also issued this statement:

"As you know there are serious protests in my country now. My call on stream was just another form of participation of the protest that I wish to grab more attention. I put so much effort in that social movement in the past few months, that I sometimes couldn't focus on preparing my Grandmaster match. I know what my action on stream means. It could cause me lot of trouble, even my personal safety in real life. But I think it's my duty to say something about the issue."

Source of the statement: [https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/9242/hong-kong- player-b...](https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/9242/hong-kong-player- blitzchung-calls-for-liberation-of-his-country-in-post-game-interview)

</comment><comment><USER61> Wow, when a government can ruin someone's professional career of choice simply because he or she has an opinion that goes against the People's Republic, that's when companies should decide to no longer do business in China.

Sadly, however, the dollar is more powerful than the the moral high ground.

<comment><USER62> This wasn't the government's decision though, was it? It was Blizzard's decision.

Just makes me wonder where all of this is going. Americans left and right are choosing China's cultural decisions over America's cultural ... legacy for the lack of a better word.

Over money.

It's like the Americans who love America, because America made them rich, are now loving China because China is richer. I don't know which is more American, _actually_.

It might be more "American" to love money more than America. Americans have shown it is more important to love money more than where you were born.

It's all so ... poetically disturbing.

<comment><USER63> > It's like the Americans who love America, because America made them rich, > are now loving China because China is richer.

China isn't richer. That debunks the rest of your follow-on premise. China has less than half the household wealth of the US. The US has 35%-40% of all the world's millionaires and about 32%-34% of all the world's wealth (with just 4% of the population).

Fun fact of the day: Since any of the years 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010 (pre or post great recession) the US has produced more new household wealth than China has. Not an outcome very many people would expect. China went from $4 to $52 trillion in household wealth since the year 2000 and the US gain still exceeded that gain by another 1/3.

Since just 2007-2008 the US has added $42 trillion in new household wealth, and only added $1.7 trillion in new household debt. The greatest net positive household balance sheet expansion in world history. Americans have been busy boosting savings (~8% savings rate) and paying down their mortgages (share of homes without a mortgage at 15-20 year highs along with strong growth in household equity figures).

<comment><USER64> China has 5x the number of eyeballs that USA has, this is a wealth of attention, human capital, which is what gives money it's value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> A _lot_ of comments here seem to take as a given that banning any offensive speech in any forum leads inexorably to situations like this, where the "offensive speech" is political speech offensive to an authoritarian government. But this implies that it's impossible to distinguish between different kinds of "offensive" speech based on any meaningful criteria whatsoever, and this just seems to be fundamentally incorrect.

(1) Someone in a forum makes an "offensive" comment that's a show of support for political protestors which might anger an authoritarian government that not so incidentally happens to be of a country with a lot of customers of a product the forum supports;

(2) Someone in a forum makes an "offensive" comment that's an insulting attack on other users based on race, and the offensive nature is pretty clear to most people -- at least those who don't agree with the attack -- even if it happens to be prefaced with "I'm not racist, I'm just saying...".

 _These are not incredibly difficult to distinguish between._ The commenter in the first case is supporting a marginalized group; the commenter in the second is attacking one. Punishing the commenter in the first case is kowtowing to an authoritarian government for baldly monetary reasons; punishing the commenter in the second case is showing support for an oppressed group in a way which is probably not going to bring you any financial benefit -- your company's accountants are not going to step in and say "you need to ban Pepe1488 for consistently sounding like a white supremacist because if you don't, it could cost us hundreds of millions of dollars" \-- and whose PR benefit is, at the least, debatable. (The people in the oppressed group might love you, but if there is any press coverage whatsoever you are going to be inundated with threats.)

There's a principle involved here which can lead you to boycotting Blizzard, but that principle is "we should support the right of people to protest against their goverment." The principle isn't "you should never ban any offensive speech of any kind at any time because to do so inexorably leads you to taking the side of authoritarian governments." (Use a slippery slope argument once, and you'll use them everywhere.)

<comment><USER66> >These are not incredibly difficult to distinguish between

this is fundamentally misguided. who gets to judge who is the marginalized individual? global geopolitics is more complicated than there being strict good actors and bad actors

<comment><USER34> "Are they being shot at by police, or are they police shooting at people" is a good place to start.

<comment><USER67> That seems like an extremely bad rule of thumb to me. Neo nazis sometimes get into violent confrontations with the police, for example

<comment><USER34> Do they? More often I see the police protecting the neonazis, or marching with them out-of-uniform.

The FBI has been warning about white supremacist infiltration of police departments since 2006[1], and nothing has been done about it, because the infiltration is already complete: most cops are at least comfortable with white supremacy. Those who speak out against white supremacy from within police departments get kidnapped and beaten by their colleagues, or left in dangerous situations without backup.[2]

1\. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white- supremacists-i...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists- in-law-enforcement)

2\. [https://www.thisamericanlife.org/414/right-to-remain- silent#...](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/414/right-to-remain-silent#play)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This is what you get for cosying up to bullies. It may be exhilarating while it lasts, but since the bully doesn't care about anyone but themselves, you will eventually always loose. The west has been gorging on cheap products from China and we started getting dependent. Now the bully senses power over us, and starts applying pressure. The better bullies know how to do this incrementally, slowly at first, so that it's hardly noticeable. Then, at some point you realize you're in a situation that you don't want to be in, but it's too late.

<comment><USER69> Yep, exactly, and furthermore this is a deliberate strategy on the part of China, and a naive strategy on the part of the US. Here's a good article on this very topic that you might enjoy:

[https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-joe-biden- empowered-c...](https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-joe-biden-empowered- chinas-censorship)

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> China is clearly up to no good, but I can't shake the feeling that there would be something off about allowing political soapboxing in apolitical events like this. Should people have a set list of political ideas to propagate at the end of every interview? "My deck was not strong enough in the end-game. And also legalize assault rifles and support the Kurds".

I dunno.

<comment><USER34> Not allowing the expression of political opinions is a political act inspired by political opinion with political consequences.

There is no such thing as "apolitical", it is code for "supporting the status quo and agreeing with those currently holding power".

<comment><USER70> But should political messaging always be allowed in all forums though? Is it not inappropriate in some cases?

Would you be as supportive if the message had been "protect the second amendment, support the NRA" or something?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I just went through the process to delete my account. First attempt to use my Authenticator was "denied - too many attempts. Try another method". Tried using SMS auth, "denied - too many attempts. Try another method". Uploaded my driver's license. Irrespective of stance on China, for this behaviour alone Blizzard can go and get fucked.

EDITED to correct spelling.

<comment><USER72> It needs to be that way. Deleting a MMO account or several thousand dollars worth of hearthstone collections should not be something a casual hacker can do with just your password.

<comment><USER71> I didn't make myself clear. I have 2FA enabled and neither the authenticator nor the SMS verification was accepted. And yet I strangely had no problem logging into the game last time I played. I'm pretty sure they're just creating hoops to dissuade casual leavers. #blexit

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I said a similar thing yesterday but I think it has become clear that importing from China was mostly fine for our country, debatable on the lost jobs and environmental part sure, but exporting to China was a poison pill that we never should have swallowed.

China has become less liberal, in the meaningful ways, since Nixon "opened up" China in the 20th century. And the flip side is that when we began exporting to them we installed pathways for China to control and de-liberalize the US.

The more economically important China becomes to the US the more it will control our companies and public political sphere.

<comment><USER74> Hey, I wonder where did you get the less liberal part? From my experience China has become greatly more liberal during the last 30-50 years. When Nixon "opened up" China it was during the culture revolution and those were really tragic years for Chinese people. Since then average Chinese has become less poor and more liberal steadily each year.

<comment><USER73> That's a totally fair point, I think maybe since 1980's might be more accurate?

In my experience, and this is mostly for Chinese who fled to either Hong Kong or the US at some point in their lives, if they are >40 years old they dislike China and view it as an oppressive regime. That makes sense since they ran away.

If they are <40 years old they're pretty blasé about China and don't really care about the regime or view it as particularly oppressive. In university is where most of these people I met came from.

Does that not gel with your experience?

<comment><USER74> I agree with you that >40 years old dislike China more as they never benefitted from the China's economic take-off that happened after 1990.

But I think for regular Chinese, the younger they are, the more liberal their world views are. This is because the education they received are more westernized each year (You might be surprised). Younger Chinese are generally more proficient in English. And to learn English people have to expose themselves to original English materials. I still remember when I was learning English I got access to things like TED, Open courseware such as Harvard's Justice, shows like the Newsroom, movies like the 12 Angry Men. China's human right records today is not good, but it was much much worse 30 years ago. Back then rural Chinese would kill new born female babies, have no issue buying and selling women (here's a movie about the topic[1]) and toddlers. People from different provinces fought and discriminated each other. And those are not government sponsored, just people being poor and illiterate. Now average Chinese are more literate and many more attended higher education (there's no higher education during the culture revolution)[2]. To this end I need to thank Nixon and people doing business with China. The average Chinese has a better life and can think more rationally thanks to economic and educational improvements.

On the other hand, internet censorship has become more strict after 2010. People do find ways to access VPN, it's just they don't discuss sensitive topics on Chinese internet.

1\. [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blind_mountain_2007](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blind_mountain_2007)

2\. [http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/cn](http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/cn) (notice the Tertiary education section)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Between this and the NBA drama over the same issue: is there a coordinated campaign going on re: censoring the west's information on HK?

It disturbs me that most older people I talk politics with seems to think we ought to confront China over IP violations... human rights violations and anti-democratic activity seem infinitely more important to me.

I can't boycott the NBA as I'm not a fan - but I've given Blizzard a lot of time and money - in the past. What a shame. Are there other recent examples besides the NBA and this?

</comment><comment><USER76> Previous discussion (for some reason, it was removed off the front page pretty quickly, hmm): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189491)

<comment><USER77> Just read through the comments here and it's obvious why it got flagged off the front page. Grade A flamewar material.

<comment><USER76> I see, thanks for the explanation.

Maybe I should've rephrased the title of the post better to prevent it next time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I've been boycotting Blizzard for a while now. They made it really easy by releasing nothing good.

<comment><USER79> They've made it crushingly, _erode-absolutely-all-of-their-good-will-and- prestige-as-a-developer-despite-monopolizing-your-childhood-imagination_ easy.

Natural late-stage corporate life cycle, I guess. :,c But they'll keep making EZ $$$ as long as store whales keep buying mounts and pets. :D Tell _them_ to boycott.

<comment><USER80> I mean they became successful by making Totally Not Warhammer: The Video Game and Totally Not Warhammer 40K. And I'm pretty sure those people are long since gone away from the company. Companies are like the Ship of Theseus. When every plank has been replaced, it's not the same ship even if it looks like it is.

<comment><USER81> They became a successful company by producing amazing games. Games like Warcraft 1, 2, & 3, Starcraft, Diablo 1 & 2 were straight-up fantastic games. The fact that they borrowed heavily from existing fantasy art and literature does not have anything to do with their gameplay merits. Fantasy is a genre that is always borrowing heavily from previous material. Did Warhammer invent Orcs and Dwarves?

To your second point: I agree. They're not at all the same company that they once were.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Seems like all of the other pro Hearthstone players should come together and voice their support at once. It would certainly be fun to see how Blizzard reacts then – shut it all down?

<comment><USER40> This is an excellent idea. Why limit it to one game?

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I see that American businesses play double standard here. In the USA, sport teams and entertainment businesses are the loudest when it comes to free speech and civil rights, LGBT rights. But they will bend over for CCP money instead of standing for the same causes. I have yet to see ANY business roll the freedom drum and make a stand about human rights when it comes to the violations in China. It's sad that a recent South Park episode is exactly the reality here and not a satire.

<comment><USER84> Sadly it's not a double standard if you define standard as income. In US it brings money to shout with lgbt in china it brings money to squash the shouting.

If you redefine your morals to money it works well. Not sure if that's good but it seems it happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> What was the exact quote? The article doesn't mention it. I assume it was in support of the HK protestors.

<comment><USER86> "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age!"

[https://twitter.com/slasher/status/1181065339230130181](https://twitter.com/slasher/status/1181065339230130181)

<comment><USER87> What is happening there is literally what has led to revolutions in several western countries over the last couple centuries.

The Chinese are correct to be afraid, they have spent the last half century cleansing the concept of freedom from their society and they are terrified of what comes next.

People are going to start dying publicly in HK very soon, and the rest of the world will have to decide which side of history they want to stand on.

The American's needed allies to succeed in their revolution against a much more powerful nation, HK will need allies too.

<comment><USER88> Considering how Trump bowed down before Turkey about the christian Kurd fighters issue(basically abandoning people who were promised aid in exchange for dismantling their border security), I don't think he's going to care about Hong Kong too much

<comment><USER87> So then the real question is how do we use Trumps ego and addiction to social media to get him to start caring about HK.

His "trade war" already puts him in an adversarial stance towards from the perspective of his base.

<comment><USER89> I struggle to imagine a situation that would be improved by adding MORE involvement by Trump.

<comment><USER87> I can't stand the guy either, but his ability to mobilize his base can't be understated.

If it can someone be framed as a choice between the freedoms that Americans have died for and bending over to a totalitarian state I think it would be possible to sway conservatives into opposing these policies.

<comment><USER90> Do you want to help the people in Hong Kong or just start a war though?

Having China and the US grandstanding will make it a wedge issue and decrease the chances of compromise and a peaceful solution. At some point the parts need to sit down at the table and find a solution they can all present as a win.

<comment><USER87> There is no compromise with totalitarianism.

They either allow people to be free, or people die fighting for their freedom. There is no other way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> This is shaping to be fun tactic in the culture war. To force corporations that want to be seen as woke in the west to bow to China which will hurt their image at home.

If someone manages to do it with Nike it will be fun to watch.

<comment><USER86> How is bowing to China woke? Not following.

<comment><USER92> The other way around. Woke Inc. want to stay woke, but they also want to not be on the bad side of the Chinese state due to business interest there.

Hence, the woke company needs to do pretty un-woke things, and their hypocrisy is exposed.

<comment><USER86> I think the part that confused me was the idea of one side in the culture war forcing companies to bow to China, as a tactical manoeuvre. I just can't see the "unwoke" segments siding with China.

<comment><USER17> After reading further reply, I understand the idea as this: the "unwoke" side of the culture war sees a company proclaiming to be woke, and to expose them as hypocrites they do something that forces the company to either defy China or to reveal that their woke marketing is full of crap.

<comment><USER86> Gotcha, thanks. Calling that "forcing them to bow" is strange to me, but I think your reading is right :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle.

Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions.

The Chinese government tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion.

If that is indeed the way, then our society and the discourse therein is no longer free, and the CCP has won.

We need to keep these firms in our mind. We need to keep a list of when this happens, and we need to sanction this as best as we can. Similarly, anyone standing up to censorship should have our support.

I can be pro HK, or I can be pro China, and I can voice opinions because doing so either way is an equally valid form of free expression. But it can not be that one side gets pre-emptively censored to appease the CCP, or any actor with the power to DEFINE the bar of what is reasonable expression of opinions.

<comment><USER94> So far I've noticed:

1> New Top Gun Movie removed a patch on Tom Cruises jacketdue to Chinese funding.

2> NBA issued an apology for an owner showing Hong Kong support and China stopped NBA broadcasts.

3> Blizzard

4> Apple Hides Taiwans Flag emoji

Sounds trivial but they're the tip of the iceberg for censoring freedom of expression based on a DICTATOR's whim.

Xi "Winnie The Poop" is an autocrat and once he sealed his grip on power and lifted term limits.

The fact is, the people are fighting a restriction on their freedom, in order to benefit the powerful.

This is a tale as old as humanity itself.

This is also what I fear will happen to America if we're not careful.

I think we need to be united in standing up against restrictions on the freedom of expression.

<comment><USER95> It is "Pooh" with an H not a P at the end.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the- Pooh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh)

<comment><USER96> _wooosh_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Maybe we can force companies to divest from Tencent now like we made Grindr divest? Seems like a bad idea to let foreign state-companies own large swaths of your economy.

</comment><comment><USER98> A few months ago we were talking about Facebook and Twitter censoring bigots, and a lot of people responded that it's fine when a corporation does it on their own platform--they own the platform and can do what they want with it.

My position was that when corporate platforms are such an important part of our communications, protecting free speech on those platforms remains important even though they're corporately owned[1]. It's easy to be pro- censorship when you agree with the censors, but corporations are amoral and if we set the standard that censorship doesn't matter, there's no guarantee that they'll only censor the way we want them to.

Consider this an "I told you so" post.

EDIT: More on this subject, perhaps a bit better-thought-out: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194433](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194433)

[1] I'd further argue that we shouldn't give up so much of our communication to corporately-owned platforms for this reason, but that's a separate discussion.

</comment><comment><USER99> We're increasingly at the mercy of private companies for what used to be considered civil liberties.

I'm sure I'll get someone arguing about private v.s. public oppression, but at the end of the day being a professional video game player in someone's walled garden is no less of a specialized or acquired skill than say being an expert cabinet maker.

So we're increasingly ending up in situations where people's hobbies or professions exist at the whimsical pleasure of private corporations.

If this guy talked shit about a foreign government 50 years ago and liked to play football as a hobby, and was a skilled cabinet maker that government couldn't pressure a private company to ban him from all football pitches worldwide, or exile him from cabinet making.

The answer isn't to boycott Blizzard, that's raging against the smallest cog in the machine. The answer is to eliminate these power relationships with a concerted effort of moving to free & open source software, and at the federated services when something needs to be hosted centrally.

<comment><USER100> He's not exiled from professional gaming.

<comment><USER99> Hence the analogy to cabinet making v.s. all of carpentry, he's been banned from something he's heavily specialized in.

But I think that misses the point, 20 years ago nobody would have been able to ban anyone from Quake III, because running the servers was distributed, today you have major game companies like Sony, Microsoft etc. that can ban you from entire game ecosystems.

In another 20 the whimsy of one company might be enough to ban you from all of gaming for all practical purposes.

<comment><USER100> How narrow would the exile have to be for you to be comfortable with it?

Or, put another way, how big can my business get before I have to forgo my right to make my own decisions about who I collaborate with?

<comment><USER99> You don't have to forgo any rights. I'm not saying a mob should get between you and a customer, but that customers should be more picky about who they deal with.

A lot of people in this thread are calling for a boycott of Blizzard, I'm pointing out that this isn't a productive way to solve the problem at large while those people continue to subject themselves to the whims of other companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> This is China's soft power, restricting access to its economy to erode away the freedom of speech. How long before the chilling effect of criticising China start to affect those outside because the corporations depend too much on the Chinese economy for their survival?

There needs to be a law to prevent corporations from enforcing political censorship on behalf of another nation.

</comment><comment><USER102> Ethereum-based game Gods Unchained has promised to pay his lost winnings and give him free entry to their own $500K tournament: [https://twitter.com/GodsUnchained/status/1181487505180258304](https://twitter.com/GodsUnchained/status/1181487505180258304)

</comment><comment><USER103> Massive Streisand effect incoming.

<comment><USER104> The only problem is China is too big to care. Streisand effect only affects those people where a spotlight from a small percent of the internet heavily affects them

<comment><USER105> I interpreted it as in relation to Blizzard.

<comment><USER103> I was also mostly referring to potential bad effect on Blizzard.

However, I would find it funny if the whole episode made some of your "average" Blizzard-gamer care about China and HK.

(Emphasis on the _" average"_ here: I obviously have no data, but I suspect that the _average_ Blizzard-game player is a young teenage boy who's spending too much time playing with friends to be passionate about international Asian politics. Again, using an hyperbole here. I know you exist, DoTA-geopolitics- nerds.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> To quote South Park, "You gotta lower your ideals of freedom if you want to suck on the warm teat of China."

The saddest part about this is that Blizzard simultaneous says that it supports people's rights to express their individual thoughts and opinions while disqualifying and banning a player for doing exactly that. It's corporate doublespeak. I would have more respect for them if they were simply honest and said that they (clearly) don't support the expression of thoughts and opinions which may lead to loss of business in China. That would actually be a consistent position. They can't have it both ways.

<comment><USER36> But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,

List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,

—

"They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin."

</comment></comment><comment><USER107> An aside: Blizzard has been fighting harder and harder to control the esports that revolve around its games. Now that it is succeeding in centralizing things as it hoped, it is using its power to destroy careers and impose political censorship literally for the Chinese government.

</comment><comment><USER108> Can we get the top leaders in tech to say something about the situation in Hong Kong? I feel like with enough public pressure, this should be doable. For instance, have Paul Graham or any of the YC partners expressed any support for democracy and freedom in HK?

<comment><USER109> Doubt it. There's lots of money to be made: [http://www.ycchina.com/](http://www.ycchina.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER110> As I recall, Blizzard decided to remove skeletons and some other things from World of Warcraft years ago in order to enter the Chinese market.

<comment><USER34> Removing/changing artistic depictions because they have unintended meaning in a different cultural context is one thing.

Cutting LGBT characters and banning people who criticize the regime is entirely different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> China is successfully extending their censorship regime to US companies who are gladly accepting it. All because 50 years ago pro-business deregulationism got us $50 million CEO bonuses, $100 TVs, and gladly turned China into a superpower.

</comment><comment><USER112> I just canceled my WoW subscription because of this. I was so excited for phase 2. :( What a shitty thing for Blizzard to do.

<comment><USER41> Me too. I enjoyed it, but I can live without it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> With the risk of being flagged I may say that Blizzard did the right thing BUT ONLY if the interview was a an _official_ post-match interview. Otherwise they did wrong, since they cannot force people into not telling whatever they want by any other mean.

I think it is the right thing to do in order to avoid future sociopolitical references in official post-match interviews: imagine someone saying 'power to the whites' or whatever in an live Blizzard interview. Like it or not, if you urge to call this move "censorship" you (and Blizzard) would have to tolerate slurs like that.

<comment><USER40> Sort of agree, but I'll add that the constraints need to be clearer too. I'm sure pro athletes have contracts that mention what they can and cannot say in the league TV interviews when it comes to political or commercial messages for example. This just had a vague catch all formulation.

Also: Blizzard should stand up for liberal democracy. It's as simple as that. One can't treat all political messages the same.

<comment><USER113> >> contracts

From the blog post: _" players ... must abide by the official competition rules."_

They have a set of rules to follow. I don't know how much _clear_ these are.

>> Blizzard should stand up for liberal democracy

Blizzard sells videogames and hosts a tournament. _Liberal democracy_ is a moral philosophy, point of view, preference that goes well with you and others, but many may not agree. It's a right to not agree to the same idea.

And of course is not up to Blizzard to choose which philosophy is _right_ or _wrong_. It's like the old bar rule: "no religion, no politics".

Disclaimer: I am not in favor of China or dictatorships or against democracy.

<comment><USER40> These were my opinions, which extend basically to this: Hold companies to higher standards than merely "maximizing profits while following laws". I completely expect companies to take a stand either for or against the protesters in Hong Kong even though all they _really_ want to do is sell computer games in the West, Hong Kong _and_ China and no one asks them what they think. It's an impossible luxury to (as incidents such as this shows) to think it's possible to choose "no politics". There simply is no "no politics" option in business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> Blizzard doesn't want to take ownership of their problem. If you're serving a country that doesn't have free speech, you need to limit what information is transmitted to that country. Just like any other tech company that has done major business in China...

Rather than just censoring information that's transmitted to China's citizens, they are moving the censorship worldwide. I personally cannot support a company who's goes this route rather than the former.

</comment><comment><USER115> I know it's long, protracted, painful for consumers and companies alike, but I think if we get one good thing out of our current China trade war and economic de-integration -- and this is a big thing -- it is corporate and media independence from PRC pressure.

The PRC exerts pressure on every corporate and media entity which wants access to the Chinese market, and it's amazingly subtle and effective propaganda. In movies, this means a lot of small things that the average consumer doesn't even notice anymore:

\- Most blockbuster action movies have a China scene. The China scene invariably shows glistening skyscrapers, futuristic technology, and effective allies.

\- You want to film in China? You don't have Chinese antagonists. Use North Koreans. Use Russians. Or some other anonymous / fake country.

Much less criticize the actual government? Hah, good joke.

Now, if average, non-Hollywood companies are self-censoring users to stay in the Chinese market, it's time to cut the umbilical cord. It's going to hurt, but at least we'll come out of it with free expression and companies who simply have to follow the rule of law. Not the rule of subtle pressure and self-censorship to help a foreign government's propaganda campaign.

</comment><comment><USER116> Speaking of forcing companies into doing whatever a national government sees as its political policy ...

How about the US forcing other companies (Huawei) into not doing business with countries it doesn't like (Iran) and attempting to extradite foreign individuals (CFO of Huawei) to advance that aim.

I'm not saying what CCP is doing is correct but the US has been doing the same shit for decades. Governments have always used companies as pawns for political purpose.

</comment><comment><USER117> That makes me wonder whether they'd nowadays act on the "Bolvar died for our sins" [1] meme from BlizzCon 2015 (for those who aren't familiar with the WoW universe: Bolvar is one of the heroes of a WoW expansion, as he sacrificed himself for the world ie. he is a martyr).

[1] [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTP0qTWUcAA3N_F.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTP0qTWUcAA3N_F.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER118> > offends a portion or group of the public

This is extremely vague. I'm pretty sure any non-trivial amount of words is virtually guaranteed to offend someone somehow.

</comment><comment><USER119> Is Twitter's Worldwide Trends not just based on tweet frequency anymore? I went to Twitter to see if people are talking about this outside Reddit and HN and my trends is filled with unrelated topics. The Blizzard one was at 13th position with more tweets than the topics above it. [https://imgur.com/a/Ymb9D04](https://imgur.com/a/Ymb9D04)

</comment><comment><USER120> If they ever setup an automated global power reach that allows them to censor people anywhere imagine what they could use that for if it ever came to an actual armed conflict or some orchestrated attack on another country.

They could stop people from warning us or confirming afterwards that they were even involved. Hell, imagine what a government could use this for when going to war against it's own people? Yes, hell.

</comment><comment><USER121> The US needs to get serious here. We are in a battle for the future, make no mistake. We need to back our companies up when they promote our ideals and reprimand them when they bend to the will of enemy actors - CCP in specific.

CCP is an enemy actor and should be treated as such. Their ideals are no more valid than ours. So by default all should be given an equal footing. What happened here is not that.

</comment><comment><USER122> Why did we have a Cold War with the Soviet Union, but are buddies with China?

<comment><USER123> The USSR was very explicit about spreading communism and destroying the west. China has been vague about what they want, which is why you have the current culture wars over China's influence in the west and what it all means. It's a much harder to get in the mood to fight someone when they're not right up in your face with a gun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> It's funny how Western companies talk about diversity, inclusion, and all of these democratic values. Then the minute a rich totalitarian regime complains, all of those concerns go out the window because $$$. Hypocrites.

I get it, if you don't cozy up to China, they'll just ban you and rip your product off. Seems like that's preferable to spinelessness.

</comment><comment><USER125> Gods Unchained is giving the player the winnings they lost because of this. [https://twitter.com/GodsUnchained/status/1181487505180258304](https://twitter.com/GodsUnchained/status/1181487505180258304)

</comment><comment><USER126> Blizzard is 100% fine with their games having a political message when they think it gives them free brownie points (announcing various characters as being explicitly gay), but are complete total cowards when it might cost them something.

<comment><USER127> Being gay isn't political.

<comment><USER126> No, being gay itself is not a political decision, but making a big deal about how progressive you are as a company because your game has gay characters is very much a political statement.

<comment><USER127> I am completely unaware of blizzard tooting their own horn for being progressive about having a gay character.

Undoubtedly they've used gay and lesbian characters in marketing, but marketing towards gay and lesbian people is, again, not a political statement in and of itself.

<comment><USER88> What exactly are you trying to say? Blizzard has indeed used pride flag in marketing materials and that is a VERY political statement

<comment><USER127> Do not mistake a giant faceless corporation's product marketing decisions for anything other than the soulless money grubbing than they are.

If Blizzard actually were so politically progressive, perhaps they might not be in this situation of backlash.

<comment><USER128> This comment sounds like you agree that they're doing fake political progressiveness for marketing purposes. So do you rescind your previous comment?

<comment><USER127> I don't believe that they're "doing politics".

Think of them as widget-collecting aliens who understand nothing about humans but are told that by putting a rainbow on a trinket they can collect more widgets.

There is nothing political about it, it's just a function of maximised self interest.

<comment><USER126> That excuses utter amorality way too easily, Blizzard is run by people, not robots or aliens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> I have an idea: let's cancel culture the people who are cancel culturing, and then all sing Kumbaya.

In all seriousness, this is ridiculous. I hope this makes people understand how frighteningly China is intertwined with our corporations and culture.

</comment><comment><USER130> Somehow I am sure if he protested against US government, or climate change, or plastic straws, or patriarchy, or use of wrong pronouns, or anything else we've seen protested against by celebrities lately, Blizzard would probably celebrate it and publish a press release about how brave he (and by extension, they) are.

The cowardice and hypocrisy of US corporations, especially on the background of them pretending to uphold higher values, is astonishing. Good thing it's being revealed so clearly and overwhelmingly. They only understand money - <USER3> whoever ever paid them money or intends to - should take note.

</comment><comment><USER131> This is how China behaves when it's still far away from being #1 superpower.

</comment><comment><USER132> What I find most interesting about this is their corporate mission: [https://www.blizzard.com/en- us/company/about/mission.html](https://www.blizzard.com/en- us/company/about/mission.html)

"Every voice MATTERS Great ideas can come from anywhere. Blizzard Entertainment is what it is today because of the voices of our players"

Maybe time for an update?

Edit: They have a statue in front of their office: [https://i.imgur.com/5PJxrZr.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5PJxrZr.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER133> Well if people can get hurt because they see a nipple of course a grown up person can also get upset about some rando on the internet having an opinion on Hong Kong. Both things make equal sense to me at least.

</comment><comment><USER134> [https://kotaku.com/blizzard-suspends-hearthstone-player- for-...](https://kotaku.com/blizzard-suspends-hearthstone-player-for-hong- kong-supp-1838864961)

</comment><comment><USER135> > While we stand by one's right to express individual thoughts and opinions, > players and other participants that elect to participate in our esports > competitions must abide by the official competition rules.

Laff.

</comment><comment><USER136> Democracy is more important than Hearthstone - there are a ton of games to play and a ton of developers that have the ability to show a spine (which public companies may be mechanically missing).

</comment><comment><USER137> Blizzards statement about having an "investigation" into a " rule" violation is very disingenuous. The rule is just they can ban anyone at their sole discretion that hurts their image.

</comment><comment><USER138> I don't care about video games. I don't care about Blizzard. I've never heard of Hearthstone.

But I do care deeply about freedom of speech, and I'm getting tired of this crap.

<comment><USER139> You can't use someone's event as a platform to express your political views when their terms forbid it.

Freedom of speech does not protect you form the consequences of your actions.

<comment><USER140> >You can't use someone's event as a platform to express your political views when their terms forbid it

Their terms are a generic, vague catch all yo allow them to punish you for saying anything they don't like. There's nothing "explicit" about them.

And who cares really? The issue at hand is whether or not we, many of us Blizzard customers, feel that they have exercised their power in a just and defensible manner. Saying "welp they're a business and it's their platform!" is just a cop out. You're skirting the issue at hand and completely ignoring the ramifications of continual kowtowing to oppressive governments in ways which help them to further oppress.

The question isn't whether or not they _can_, it's whether or not they _should_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER141> One difference between and autocratic government and a democracy is the speed at which decisions can be made, and that's what Blizzard, Apple, and the NBA are up against when having to choose who to appease.

The Chinese government can unilaterally shut them down while people in the U.S. need to organize and lobby and fight to get change, and then when change finally happens, it's only half-baked.

I'm not saying an autocratic government is better, just making an observation.

</comment><comment><USER142> Perhaps it's because of the overt nature of it's pressure, but it seems to me that China has definitely reached a level somewhat equal to the US in terms of "soft power". Considering Belt & Road and it's influence over Africa, along with the Europeans not responding to US pressure and accepting Chinese Telecom infrastructure, it definitely seems like a 50/50 balance of soft power going forward.

</comment><comment><USER143> Appeasement card: [https://i.redd.it/n9zqxbbhfar31.png](https://i.redd.it/n9zqxbbhfar31.png) [https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/dexong/cool_new_car...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/dexong/cool_new_card_from_activision_blizzards/)

</comment><comment><USER144> I've seen plenty of US business types on LinkedIn who are China fans and seem envious of how well China controls it's populace. In general there is a complete ignoring of the human rights issues. They seem to think that's something that irrelevant, idealistic people care about. In their mind the only people who matter are those with power, and China seems to have loads of power.

</comment><comment><USER145> If you have to check your principles at the door to do business in China, then maybe, just maybe you shouldn't be doing business in China.

</comment><comment><USER146> I play Hearthstone and sometimes I watch Twitch. I once watched two major hearthstone GMs dissing about how tough and weird they're getting treated by Blizzard during tournaments. Every single word that comes out of mouth is carefully evaluated by supervisors and you have to be stand-by like 10 hours ago before the remote event in front of your PC without any reasons.

</comment><comment><USER147> I don't know how to feel about the protests anymore, but I don't blame companies for trying to not get involved.

I think in tough situations, self-preservation tends to take priority over ideals, so I am not surprised to see a business demonstrate double standards or inconsistencies when they're pulled into a situation that could threaten their well being.

Many people make up a company and one person's actions should not put everyone else under threat because that individual's beliefs is not representative of everyone else working there.

The actions of the competitor could have threatened many people's jobs, families, and lives so you can't blame blizzard for doing what they did.

The underlying problem is the Chinese government and how they black list businesses for not following their draconian policies to do business within the country.

Mentioning a solution like having businesses collectively boycott China just doesn't seem well thought. You can't just walk away from half of your market over personal beliefs, and another company within China would jump for joy at the chance to grab that lost market share.

The point I'm making is I think we should focus on the cause for all of this which is the Chinese gov rather than blaming someone or a company who has a gun pointed at them for acting in their own best interest rather than what is right. We're not the ones being threatened so it's really easy to call people cowards.

<comment><USER148> > I don't blame companies for trying to not get involved.

You have an odd definition of "not getting involved"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER149> Check out what is going on in Houston too! This is getting ridiculous!

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/alibaba- shopping-s...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/alibaba-shopping- sites-appear-to-have-de-listed-houston-rockets-products-in-china/ar- AAIrlz6?li=BBnb2gh)

</comment><comment><USER150> It's a sad situation with HK and we should not accept it.

But I can't help but feel that a sports competition may not be the right place for political activism. Especially seeing as the rules states it won't be accepted.

If Blizzard did not suspend him they would jeopardize all of their rules, and I hope they would have done the same if he was shouting something pro-China.

<comment><USER151> Blizzard clawed back winnings (earnings) and fired the commentators. This is not a _measured_ response to alleged misbehavior. This is the response of a bully, a lunatic, or both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER152> Is China a more profitable market than the US? It's worrying that US companies are willing to go this far for foreign profit.

<comment><USER153> They do have 5x the population. Obviously not the same purchasing power, but it is quickly growing. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a very significant chunk of their revenue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER154> As South Park has just demonstrated, Ridicule is a powerful and effective world-wide weapon against the CCP censors. Imagine how much work it must have been to scrub every reference of South Park characters from the entire CCP- controlled internet? And how embarrassing and petty that looks from the outside?

</comment><comment><USER155> Well, I definitely won't be playing any more Blizzard games until they stop pulling things like this.

</comment><comment><USER156> I just changed my Battle Tag to "FreeHongKong", let's see how it takes me to get banned :D

</comment><comment><USER125> Gods Unchained is paying for the player's winnings that Blizzard took away. [https://twitter.com/GodsUnchained/status/1181487505180258304](https://twitter.com/GodsUnchained/status/1181487505180258304)

</comment><comment><USER157> Blizzcon is just a few short weeks away, I'd love to see a repeat of last years publicity crisis

</comment><comment><USER158> FIFA (The governing body for soccer) issues similar fines and bans for any political messages. ie fined they recently fined English/Scotish FA's 100k for players wearing poppies (a flower) which symbolize fallen soldiers from WW1*.

In both cases while on a base human level it FEELS wrong, if you follow the $$ end of the day the broadcast is the product they're selling to advertisers. Adding any sort of political/divisive messaging could be easily kill those deals - makes sense given the finances. You're attacking their primary income stream, of course they're gonna come at you hard.

The player is not owed any platform by participating in this Blizzard event. If they banned him for comments made on his own social media outside of the event it would be a different story.

To be clear I'm not defending Blizzard, just explaining why most broadcast orgs will react similarly.

It is what it is, until the advertising based model of entertainment changes it'll continue to be this way.

</comment><comment><USER159> While I cant do anything about the money I've already spent, I've just uninstalled all Blizzard games from my PC.

Blizzard: As a result of this action, you have lost my business. I've been a loyal customer, but this behavior is unacceptable.

</comment><comment><USER160> This is just asking for a variation of Streisand effect. Now everyone will comment about Hong Kong, whether they care about it or not. And Blizzard will relent eventually, after much gnashing of teeth.

</comment><comment><USER79> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xfzQ7X9d0o&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xfzQ7X9d0o&feature=youtu.be&t=39)

</comment><comment><USER161> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute)

</comment><comment><USER162> The rule is clear :

>> Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard's sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image...

It says : "Blizzard is a commercial entity and it doesn't want to be involved in anything else than gaming".

For me Blizzard acts in a very corporate way. There's nothing wrong with that, provided you accept the corporate way is the good way.

If you think Blizzard's action is wrong, then just don't abide to their rules.

Blizzard has no moral, it's a commercial entity and it makes whatever compromise needed to expand its commercial activities.

Let's talk about that on the next tournament, just to see how the rules have been updated.

(try to express political opinion inside Disneyworld, just for fun)

<comment><USER163> No one is saying that Blizzard has broken laws. People are expressing their displeasure about how Blizzard has chosen to exercise their rights.

I encourage you to hold companies to account for their actions even if those actions do not technically violate any laws.

P.s. Political opinions are on the official schedule of Disneyworld: [https://dl3.pushbulletusercontent.com/UW7YGjoleObdVw7HDPeapr...](https://dl3.pushbulletusercontent.com/UW7YGjoleObdVw7HDPeaprNVFC2h2kp2/Screen%20Shot%202019-10-08%20at%2010.49.00%20AM.png)

<comment><USER162> I don't say Blizzard has broken any law. It hasn't. I just tried to remind people that Blizzard is a private/corporate entity that will not endorse political debate because it may hurt its commercial value.

I'll add that Blizzard is absolutely right in doing so. Because, it clearly can't be an open space for expressing opinions. That's because its values may be in competition with those opinions. So any opinions expressed inside Blizzard stuff would be "tainted" by Blizzard's nature/control. So Blizzard wouldn't be very good at letting opinion being expressed. So Blizzard's decision actually helps to maintain the expression of opinions in place where it is most efficient : the public places, the parliament, etc.

And yes, that holds for FaceBook, Google, etc. Much of Internet is privately held => expressing public opinions over the web is tricky.

Now, following you reaction, I've checked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically article 19 :

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Which basically says that Blizzard should not oppose the expression of opinion (provided one interprets "media" in a wide way : speech is a medium).

I admit that the more I look into it, the harder it gets...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER164> People seem to be really surprised that capitalism doesn't equal freedom. Time to wake up. Free world is in decline. Democracies of today are mostly facades to a more-less controlled societies. Sure, people can vote, but what happens after that? The accountability and controlling mechanisms have been in erosion for years now. Even the EU legislation, once a model of democracy, is now so far from the individual citizen that it's often difficult to understand why Brussels is voting on certain laws.

It used to be that free press kept close tabs on those in power. Well, thanks to the Internet it got very easy to attack the press and very hard for the press to stay profitable. We are heading towards a cliff and hopefully we will create a better system after that. But man, it will hurt to fall.

<comment><USER165> Allow me to indulge in the slightly spammy repost of relevant comments I made yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21180623](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21180623)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21180714](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21180714)

It's important that we clarify what the word "Democracy" means in our language, and whether to accept or reject the fact that its current use is tragically removed from its original meaning: it used to describe a concept, it's now simply a label with no intrinsinc meaning.

<comment><USER164> Well put!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER166> In a brief swing through China recently I saw young people playing hearthstone everywhere, I cannot stress this enough, _everywhere_ I went.

</comment><comment><USER167> Blizzard, Tiffany, NBA, what happened with South Park... we're on a roll this week, and that's only what made the headlines.

</comment><comment><USER168> Will blizzard apply Censorship system in WOW, Hearthstone, Diablo, Overwatch?

Anyway, I don't need to know because won't play it anymore.

</comment><comment><USER169> Actually, you should boycott every company that do business in China, including Apple, Microsoft, Coca Cola, etc.

</comment><comment><USER170> Is upcoming Modern Warfare going to get boycotted as well? That will get Activision's attention for sure

</comment><comment><USER171> Cancel culture is becoming universal. Violations of political correctness can cause cancellation of TV shows, loss of jobs, and now banning from video game competitions. It is interesting that these days this is primarily a tool of the left end of the political spectrum even though in the past, book burnings, etc. were seen as a conservative tactic. However, cancel responses are becoming so common that I would not be surprised if conservatives start doing it too, if they haven't already.

<comment><USER172> It's a spiral to the bottom

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Can we please start a cultural movement that forces large corporations to choose between appeasing Chinese censors and looking like fools to the rest of the west or getting banned in China.

Really seems like a win win scenario.

<comment><USER173> How about Chinese owners?

Chinese Tencent owns 5 percent of Blizzard, if full owner of Riot Games, 48% of Epic Games, 11.5% of Bluehole (Fortnite and PUBG), 5% of Ubisoft. They are also investor in Discord. [https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that- tencent-has-...](https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has- invested-in/)

AMC is fully owned by Chinese. The largest movie theater chain in the United States is fully owned by Chinese.

Legendary Entertainment Group is owned by Chinese.

Forbes Media sold majority stake to Chinese company.

<comment><USER87> Make them choose between the two markets.

I'm tired of the idea that the Western and Chinese markets can both be appeased the middle of the road morality.

What is happening in HK right now is wrong, and the west has fought wars over this very issue.

<comment><USER174> It's the authoritarian Chinese government insisting on censorship. Not so much the Chinese market.

<comment><USER175> Chinese propaganda is well-spread. I had a Chinese roommate, well educated to boot - PhD in Econ from Columbia, and I could feel the reverence he had for Mao even though his ancestors were landlords.

<comment><USER144> Similar experience. He said Mao had to make hard choices as a leader to propel his country forward. I asked him why India didn't have to starve millions to do the same thing.

<comment><USER176> After 1949, Mao barely did anything right and I'm surprised if any Chinese born after 90s would still defend him. But I doubt India is such a great example, we probably all have seen photos of the Gange

<comment><USER177> Are you comparing a polluted river to the deaths of millions?

<comment><USER176> Polluted by dead bodies...

<comment><USER177> You do realize that floating a family member's body down the Ganges is considered a sacred ritual and that what you just said has nothing to do with mass deaths due to negligence right?

<comment><USER176> I admit I didn't know about the ritual part, but just a little google show me this:

-[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnao_dead_bodies_row](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnao_dead_bodies_row)

And many sources mention they did this just because they can't afford proper cremation.

Another funny picture is Train with many people attached outside, not sure if that's another convention or custom :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER178> And why does not the player sue blizzard for breach of contract - breach of human rights as well.

</comment><comment><USER179> Just sold my blizzard stock. Not sure if that helps. not going to buy the WC3 remaster anymore.

</comment><comment><USER180> All your companies are belong to us

</comment><comment><USER181> I wonder if the heroes of their stories would side with governments like China's.

</comment><comment><USER182> Well this is another good reason to distance myself from Blizzard as a company.

</comment><comment><USER183> What actually happened in the interview? Is there somewhere we can watch it?

<comment><USER184> [https://twitter.com/InvenGlobal/status/1180954142396710912](https://twitter.com/InvenGlobal/status/1180954142396710912)

It's honestly not much. Goes to show how fragile the PRC's ego is.

<comment><USER183> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER185> At a broader level, this is why I think that "core values" of a corporation in a capitalist system are always, 100% of the time, complete and total bullshit and exist solely to motivate employees to work harder: [https://www.blizzard.com/en- us/company/about/mission.html](https://www.blizzard.com/en- us/company/about/mission.html)

I have NEVER seen a "core value" that takes precedence over the almighty dollar at the end of the day. It's not a core value if you uphold it only when it also conveniently aligns with making money. The thing that make values, well, values, is that you're willing to uphold them even when (or, more correctly, _especially_ when) it's difficult.

This is such a transparent example of cozying up to an authoritarian regime for profit purposes, I'm really wondering how all the Blizzard employees with Western-style values are reacting to this.

</comment><comment><USER186> The article doesn't say anything about Hong Kong or what he said

</comment><comment><USER187> Nice how they disabled comments. Sure that will solve any issues.

</comment><comment><USER179> Time to vote with our wallets. No reforged for this guy ^^^^

</comment><comment><USER188> why did this post get so low so quickly? who is downvoting?

</comment><comment><USER189> South Park have some great comments for this type of eventd

</comment><comment><USER190> Goodbye 'globalization'! Whatever that meant.

</comment><comment><USER191> Opposing communist takeover of a free society apparently violates the following:

> Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard's sole discretion, brings you into > _public disrepute_ , offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise > _damages Blizzard image_

<comment><USER192> > offends a portion or group of the public

Surely their own actions just offended "a portion or group of the public".

<comment><USER193> That's why it's only fair we as users uphold the same rules by immediately severing any ties, present and future, with Blizzard. The rules are perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER194> Is there a master list of companies like this?

</comment><comment><USER195> Corporations ARE NOT the government. Corporations have NO obligation to tolerate your hate speech on their platform. Free speech ONLY applies to government.

<comment><USER196> There we are was looking for the users saying "it's not censorship"

<comment><USER195> I'm not saying this is not censorship. I'm just giving the boundary of free speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER197> Happy to hear! Thanks President Xi!

</comment><comment><USER198> "Comments are disabled"

how poetic

</comment><comment><USER199> just cancelled my WoW sub

</comment><comment><USER111> 50 years ago we could have squashed China like a bug. Instead we singlehandedly turned it into a superpower. We needed Trump's China stance in a normal person five decades ago.

</comment><comment><USER200> Blizzard are a sell-out company anyway.

</comment><comment><USER201> This is why Trump's trade war is the only thing he's done that I support. I'm not even sure he's doing it for the right reasons, but at this point trashing the economic coziness between our nations is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. This can't continue.

And in addition to chilling investment in/from China it's giving India and Vietnam an opportunity to get footholds in manufacturing, weakening the sector that was central to making China such a powerhouse to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER202> I thought the western world was immune to communism??? It seems to me that we are more mercenaries than missionaries

</comment><comment><USER203> South Park is spot on this season. You could say they are good with predictions, but I think they just gave different perspective to something that already has been happening (episodes on China censorship)

<comment><USER204> While I agree they're spot on, it's not like this is a new issue.

<comment><USER88> China has been leveraging their power "quietly" for some time now. Anything anti-China gets buried or discredited or shouted down using whataboutisms. Even here on hackernews you'll see tons of posts on negative chinese news from month old accounts fuzzing the narrative saying some variation of "it's not easy to understand if you're not chinese etc etc"

The hong kong issue is just bringing the issue into the mainstream

<comment><USER17> > _Anything anti-China gets buried or discredited or shouted down using > whataboutisms._

Interesting. The only time I see whataboutism and China/Russia brought up in the same HN thread is when somebody tries to defend China/Russia by pointing out similar problems in the West, and _that person_ gets shouted down and accused of engaging in "whataboutism".

<comment><USER205> Sounds like you're describing the same thing. I've seen many comments defend China and try to turn attention towards actions done by the US.

<comment><USER144> What US actions are equivalent to China? If you were in China could you make the same argument regarding Chinese actions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER206> As usual, Stallman is right about software.

<comment> cbm-vic-20 And yet, so wrong about people.

<comment><USER207> There are not antithetical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER208> Absolutely agree, it's time for American video games to stop publishing in China. It's not worth the Chinese influence on our society.

<comment><USER209> American video games? What about American companies that have factories there or other presence there? Hello Apple! Hello Tesla! Hello Google.

Blizzard has been bending over backwards for some time with regards to China but this is the first time I remember them taking action against someone who does not work for them.

the simple matter is, you cannot pick and choose, all the companies must be shamed into not bending to China's censorship because it won't be long before such actions suddenly show in law; not that some of the speech regulations in the EU aren't close as it is with regards to what you can and cannot say with regards to religions

<comment><USER210> Google is blocked in China for refusing to censor what China wants. Bing works in China.

<comment><USER211> China will consider it a favor if you block your own "offensive" company from the Chinese market.

<comment><USER210> Google used to obey China's censorship requests, and was allowed in China. Then Google decided to stop obeying the requests, and China blocked Google.

You're saying that China was happy about that because China wanted Google out anyway and needed an excuse? If China didn't need an excuse, China could have blocked Google from the start. China has blocked things it considers offensive without an explicit action from that party (such as Winnie the Pooh).

If Google was obeying China's censorship, what would China find offensive about Google?

Does China find a similar level of offensiveness in the NBA and Blizzard, such that China is disappointed that they censored themselves and thus China doesn't have an excuse to block them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER212> Did anyone else watch the recent South Park episode? I think it illuminates this matter rather nicely.

</comment><comment><USER213> What we need is a JS developer to take down an important package from NPM in protest, thus breaking the Internet again.

<comment><USER214> The NPM fiasco should no longer be possible

 _If you want to unpublish a package after 72 hours have passed, contact npm Support. For more information about why we don't allow users to unpublish packages after 72 hours, see our unpublish policy._

[https://docs.npmjs.com/unpublishing-packages-from-the- regist...](https://docs.npmjs.com/unpublishing-packages-from-the-registry)

<comment><USER215> Could you just publish garbage instead?

<comment> yoz-y You could but everybody uses version pinning in production, right?

<comment><USER216> People who are serious about reproducible builds host their own repos. Most people probably don't know the difference between ^1.0.1 and ~1.0.1

<comment><USER217> Thanks for making me look that up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER218> China is very smart. They saw what was happening in the West - oppression of freedom of speech on account of "hurt feelings" \- and applied the same principles for their own nefarious purposes ("hurt Chinese feelings" a.k.a. political censorship).

 _Literally noone could have seen this coming._ /s

edit: XCabbage better explains what I was trying to say. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191253](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191253)

<comment><USER219> This is utter nonsense. Political censorship in the East is not a response to modern liberal views in the West.

That is so completely obvious that it boggles the mind that I even needed to say it.

<comment><USER218> Well thank God then that wasn't my argument.

What I'm saying is, China is co-opting _modern liberal censorship_ in the West to do it's own _political censorship_ (edit: in the West).

<comment><USER219> And no, they aren't. The two things may look superficially similar but Chinese political censorship is much, much older and the process but which it is done hasn't changed in a long time.

<comment><USER220> The only reason Blizzard was legally able to engage in this punishment - <USER4> involved stripping the player of his winnings - was that there's a player handbook banning offensive conduct and including this as a penalty. If that provision had not existed, China and Blizzard could not have used it. And the only political faction in the west who demand such codes of conduct are the SJWs.

When tomp says that China coopted the machinery of censorship laid by SJWs for its own purposes, he's entirely correct.

<comment><USER221> No, it's the PR weasel words that have existed in sports contracts from the beginning of broadcast media

> Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard's sole discretion, brings you into > public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise > damages Blizzard image

<comment><USER220> Citation needed. I don't know the sports world, but I know in my bubble, those "weasel words" are something that only SJWs would approve of. If this sort of thing existed in sports contracts in the pre-SJW era, that _is_ an interesting point that to my mind fractures tomp's narrative... but it seems unlikely to me and so far you've simply asserted it without evidence.

I note that the _exact phrase_ "offends a portion or group of the public" has only ever been used in Blizzard's rules as far as I can tell (you can use a date-filtered Google search to confirm; prior to today there are only a handful of results, all Blizzard-related). So at the very least, they didn't lift it verbatim from sports contracts. If there used to be _equivalent_ language in sports contracts a decade ago, I'd like to see it.

<comment><USER221> How do you think Kaepernick was benched and then fired, or do you think that the NFL is filled with a bunch of SJWs who also somehow think we should all stand for the flag?

<comment><USER220> As far as I know:

1\. Kaepernick wasn't fired. He simply wasn't signed by anyone team after his contract with the 49ers ended.

2\. It's a matter of factual controversy whether his treatment by the NFL was affected by his advocacy _at all_. As far as I know, no manager has explicitly admitted to making different choices about how to deal with him based on his kneeling.

3\. It was never suggested by anybody that Kaepernick's kneeling might be a breach of his contract.

4\. Kaepernick was not denied his pay for matches he'd already played in as a consequence of his kneeling.

Assuming I am correct on the facts, there is, at the very least, a significant difference in degree between that case and this one. Do you claim that anything I say above is wrong?

It also seems relevant here that basically all coverage I saw of Kaepernick's case - from the nearly-exclusively right-wing commentators I follow - <USER5> harshly critical of the minority on the right who were calling for him to be punished. By contrast, I have never seen anyone on the left criticise speech codes or corporate censorship. I do not think it is reasonable to try to draw an equivalence between the right and left on these issues by comparing the positions of a minority on the right, heavily criticised by other right- wingers, with the position of an unchallenged hegemony on the left. There is a real asymmetry here, both in terms of what the majority position of each coalition is and the extent to which they actually punish the speech they disfavour in practice.

<comment><USER222> If Kaepernick's advocacy didn't adversely affect "his treatment by the NFL" in any way "at all", then isn't it strange coincidence that the NFL went out of its way to pass a rule banning kneeling during the anthem after the controversy? [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early- lead/wp/2018/05/24...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early- lead/wp/2018/05/24/what-the-nfls-new-rules-for-anthem-protests-really-mean- for-the-first-amendment-according-to-experts/)

Seems strange for the NFL to risk a First Amendment controversy with that rule if the NFL were truly unperturbed by Kaepernick's advocacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER223> Have we all forgotten when Mozilla replaced the CTO with a long history of internet freedom work to replace him with a marketing director and the disaster that followed?

Are we going to keep trampling on all our freedoms in the name of ... freedom(?) and then blame it all on China?

EDIT: I knew some people were going to try to spin it into something it wasn't.

<comment><USER224> Was that the same lover of freedom that campaigned to take away the freedom of others?

<comment><USER225> If you think back to before gay marriage was accepted as a culturally obvious fact, some of the arguments against it involved hating gays, but others didn't. Without the ability to tell which beliefs actually motivated his donation, it is not possible to discern if he was against gays or not. (I'll refrain from giving any specific examples in order to avoid starting that debate again, but I think most of us can remember that time in fair detail.)

<comment><USER55> It's kind of hard to say "you do not deserve to share your life with the person you love. You don't deserve to take care of them when they're sick. You don't deserve a family with them. Because you're gay" without actually hating gay people.

Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.

<comment><USER171> There are very solid reasons for seeing marriage as a life-long commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of providing a stable home for the children that they conceive that has nothing to do with hating gays. This is something humans have understood for thousands of years, but only in my lifetime we seem to have forgotten.

<comment><USER55> No, there really aren't. The socioeconomic consequences of a couple are the socioeconomic consequences of a couple, no matter the dangly bits. We're not all having children.

It also turns out raising children also is not negatively affected by the parents being gay. ( _Plenty_ of studies on the subject, go read some).

Leaves actually having children. Is your argument that we all should breed? Then your argument is seriously broken, the world is about 300% over capacity already.

So, no - it's still rooted in hate. (Or fear, really)

<comment><USER225> You're providing counter-arguments against the correctness of the argument the parent suggested, but otherwise good people can believe incorrect arguments. You can't assume that someone was aware of all those studies, some of which have been conducted in the years since, and none of which are taught about in elementary school. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Mozilla CEO believed something incorrect, you also have to demonstrate that evil was the only explanation.

<comment><USER226> This is a common misconception which reduces structural discrimination to individual resentment. In reality, it does not matter at all whether the actor had evil in their heart — it only matters what the effects are (ability to adopt, hospital visitation rights, ability to immigrate etc).

<comment><USER100> I agree with you, but this is a truly unpopular opinion.

People REALLY hate the idea that they're responsible for things they haven't even conceived of.

<comment><USER225> In your life, how do you handle the guilt for your countless unknowing political sins? Does it look exactly the same as what you would do if you didn't think you were guilty?

<comment><USER100> I don't do much with the unknowing ones.

With newly known ones, I feel bad, and then I try to understand how I could be better.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER211> Our government paid good money to organize those HK protestors. The media has an obligation to cover it now.

</comment><comment><USER74> Sorry for not entirely related to the main thread, but since it seems there are many people in this thread knowledgable on what's going on in Hong Kong, I'd like to ask 2 questions.

I'm not siding with CCP, but my issue is I'm not sure I can side with the protestors either. Because

1\. Does the protestors representing the majority of citizens? If yes at this stage why the working class in Hong Kong hasn't started long term strike yet? I would imagine that the most effective non violence method of protesting by citizens would be stop working. That would for one stop the tax flow to the government.

2\. Is it necessary for protestors to be violent against pro-China civilians/properties? I'm aware that the protestors have been subject to violence from both police and mobs alike, but fighting for democracy should be a higher cause than revenge? Aren't they fight for freedom of speech among others? Or it's just freedom for themselves and violence and totalitarianism for who else disagrees? [1]

Again I love freedom to the point I've spent many years fighting it for myself and helped a few people. I support Taiwan to be an independent country. But we all know many bad things have been committed under the name of freedom as well. Now I'm not sure if the Hong Kong protestors are fighting under the name of freedom to actually express their hatred toward mainlanders? Thanks for reading and hope my questions would not offend anyone. Just would like to understand the situation better.

Also I'd like to suggest for whoever suggesting going to war with China first consider asking your government to grant full citizenship, permanent residency, or unconditional asylum to Hong Kong permanent residents who wants it.

Edit: would like to hear some thoughts when you downvote.

1\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-GR88q8pIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-GR88q8pIw)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPYuGYLesx0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPYuGYLesx0) (the planting of CCP flag near the end is really distasteful for me)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NFb2chXt9k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NFb2chXt9k)

[https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3031906...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3031906/mtr-corporation-suspends-cross-border-services- mainland) (trashing trains while passengers still inside)

(Toby Guu is a Canadian software developer) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Jgp7-tXfc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Jgp7-tXfc) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFwGqF3QlVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFwGqF3QlVc) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcw7lcZA7SE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcw7lcZA7SE)

</comment><comment><USER227> Keep your politics out of my games. It's the only way games are tolerable. I can't even keep up with having to mute/ignore people in games for their constant political rants, trolling, or other stupidity. I play games to have fun. I don't care about your causes. I don't care about your beliefs. I don't care about any problems in the world. Gaming is escapism. Piss off with that nonsense and find another venue. Blizzard was right, hands down.

</comment><comment><USER228> Seems reasonable that they don't want to allow players to push their politics using the official Blizzard streams. They are free to do so in their spare time.

What do you think Blizzard would do if some guy wore a MAGA hat in an official stream?

<comment><USER229> Into your message is built the assumption that all "politics" is the same.

That's not the case. And further, pretending that oppression and fascism and ethnic cleansing is the same as fighting against those things, because oppressing and murdering people is just another "politics" and not something special, is by itself pro-fascist and evil stance.

<comment><USER230> > Into your message is built the assumption that all "politics" is the same.

Don't say things like that on HN. They don't like it...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER231> It helps to know _a little bit_ about what's been going on in Hong Kong, before you all line up and take your daily dump on China.

It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.

The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.

So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.

However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.

It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.

What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant _violence and destruction_ from these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens, unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their _peaceful_ protests, but please don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.

(EDIT: If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.)

<comment><USER232> > crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong

There's a lot more to that story. Taiwan explicitly ruled out accepting the proposed extradition law, _despite_ IIRC a HKer murdering their HK partner whilst on holiday in Taiwan.

> chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief > Executive

You mean the promised universal suffrage of the Chief Executive that was written in the Sino-British agreement, and decades later has still not materialised.

I can see why that might be a sore point to the citizens of Hong Kong.

<comment><USER231> Reasonable people disagree on what exactly was promised in terms of universal suffrage.

Whichever way you lean, it's absolutely no excuse or justification for the violence and destruction.

<comment><USER233> Name a country who democratised through entirely peaceful means. Hint: there aren't many

<comment><USER231> India comes to mind.

Maybe you're right, there aren't many. But that doesn't make the violence and destruction right, that doesn't make the violence and destruction just.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER234> I am from China. I'm happy and proud to live in China. I feel sorry for those (who thinks) being suppressed by CCP, all in this thread. I respect any ideas people expressing anywhere. It's nothing right or wrong in politics. They're basically games for adults. Not teenagers. Teenagers are always being used in these games. They just feel like heroes when they find they can play these games like adults (I believe they pretend being like adults in their day-to- day life). If they win in a quarrel, they feel a sense of accomplishment and self satisfaction. It's just black or white in their worlds. They don't tolerate other voices. (However teenagers do help at some moments. So they are being trained and used all the time in the history.) IMO these are called mature: * hear from different voices, do not trust one single voice * think by own brains, not others * seeking reasons from both side of one thing, like yin-yang * all information is suspicious unless you see and feel it by yourself * love C/C++

</comment><comment><USER235> From Reddit - [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/de1ysj/china_acc...](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/de1ysj/china_accused_of_genocide_over_forced_abortions/f2rgef0/) -

"If you ever wondered how the whole world stood by and watched as the Nazis came to power and began committing atrocities here's your answer."

The whole thread has similar commentary - along with morbid humor: "The next Disney movie will feature forced abortions to appease China."

Makes me think of brand names - who are still in existence today - <USER6> provided services, products, to similar regimes; Russell Brand Rips on GQ, Hugo Boss, referencing Syria War and Nazi Germany - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inB-6R1-4ng](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inB-6R1-4ng)

Edit to add: Seems the pro-tyrants of China's leadership brigade is here: I had 2 upvotes, now at 0. Or if the people downvoting don't understand what's going on in China is akin to Nazi Germany then they're either indoctrinated in propaganda or haven't studied, analyzed, understood the situation adequately.

<comment><USER236> The pro-china movement on HN is extremely strong. It's fun to look at all the pro-China commenters, and then look through the account history for how long their account has existed, the kind of articles they submit and their comments.

It couldn't be more obvious.

<comment><USER237> Playing the devils advocate, maybe they are using an alt account because they don't want people like you finding them in real life.

<comment><USER22> You're making the argument that pro-China activists have more to fear in their online presence than Hong Kong activists? Could you point to some data that backs this up, because it overwhelmingly appears to be the opposite.</comment></comment></comment></comment>