
Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident - rahuldottech
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjw535/blizzards-hong-kong-screw-up-is-officially-an-international-incident
======
heyyyouu
What is really interesting about this is how completely and utterly horrible a
job Blizzard did in anticipating and preparing this very obvious possibility,
and thus is so poorly handling every single aspect of this.This so obviously
was likely to happen that it easily could have been anticipated and planned
for to be dealt with in a much, much more professional way, and yet clearly
they didn't, and it's beyond inexcusable for any major company to drop the
ball like this. And they just continue to prove their incompetence in how
they're (not) responding now -- they should be in crisis PR mode, yet they're
just sitting there, paralyzed.

How they've (mis)handled this will be studied by business and PR students for
years to come.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Blizzard has been on a downward spiral for years. They still have awesome
teams releasing and maintaining awesome games, (thank you for custom colors in
SC Remastered!), but by and large their direction has been towards EA and away
from their true fans.

~~~
benologist
This is because their name is not Blizzard. Their legacy is Blizzard. Their
name is Activision Blizzard. They are actively opposed to players' interests
in many ways, like lootboxes which many countries seek to outlaw for teaching
children to gamble, always-online DRM etc.

~~~
redisman
Metzen is out, Morhaime is out. Really the soul of the company has departed
already. They still have some of the best talent in the industry but the
products are not going to be what we used to love anymore. Makes me sad as
I've supported them from Warcraft I and Diablo I until about last year (when
they killed the competitive scene for HOTS with very little warning).

------
netsharc
Great Streisand moves by China though, previously gamers or basketball fans
might not really care about what's happening in Hong Kong/China in general,
but within 2 days they (China) have raised awareness of what a shitty overlord
they are.

~~~
bilbo0s
Well, China has done nothing here though. This is the NBA and Blizzard acting
to prevent what I like to call the "Weibo Outrage Machine" from revving too
high. (Not that it worked, because in the NBA's case, the machine was red
lining. In Blizzard's case, there was nary a peep though, so that one is a bit
puzzling?) For any who were unaware, the "Weibo Outrage Machine" is pretty
much exactly what it sounds like, think Reddit, HN, or Twitter. Only in
Mandarin, and with consensus opinions essentially 100% opposed to consensus
opinions in the West on these issues.

I'm afraid we may have entered an era where outrage machines in China
effectively dictate market access. Senators, Prime Ministers, Premier's, and
Presidents will be powerless to stop it. (Well, short of shutting the outrage
machines down.)

~~~
jessaustin
How does this "outrage machine" affect the actions of the Chinese government?
If people get outraged enough, will they vote against the communist party?

~~~
motivic
I am a Chinese American but my wife is Chinese. I have a large number of
Chinese friends. You may be surprised to learn that vast majority of Chinese
natives are very pro-China; and while they can be critical of the Chinese
government at times, they tend to be united against any actions taken by
foreign entities they consider anti-China or anti-Chinese government.

Talk to a few Chinese immigrants and you will know.

The younger Chinese generation grew up in an era of Chinese economic boom and
are the benefactors of the efficiency in decision making that came with a more
top-down (dictatorial if you will) government. The younger generation is much
more focused on economic well-being and safety over liberty or freedom.

So as long as China can maintain the economic growth it's been having the past
two decades, the Chinese public will by and large support the government.

~~~
seemack
> The younger generation is much more focused on economic well-being and
> safety over liberty or freedom

This is perfectly reasonable when you consider it a personal decision. Sure,
trade away some of your freedom for better economic well-being.

But how do they justify this when their personal economic well-being requires
trampling the freedom of other people?

By that logic, would pro-China people would support China going to war with
and taking over other countries if it brought them "economic well-being"?

(edited to make the last statement more clearly a question since it's
something I'm genuinely curious about.)

~~~
dirtyid
>But how do they justify this when their personal economic well-being requires
trampling the freedom of other people?

There are 3 great evils in China: terrorism, separatism and extremism.
HK/Tibet/XinJiang/Taiwan are not economic issues but security ones. People
balance prosperity for security everywhere. The west sees HK as a large pro
democracy movement, the Chinese see's this as fringe separatist violence by
0.001% of the population. They see HK as Chinese alt-right getting bold
undermining domestic serenity: disenfranchised, social media savvy,
economically anxious youth who see their culture being displaced and their
privileged being eroded by mainland immigrants. They're acting accordingly.

~~~
shkkmo
In what way does pretending Taiwan does not exist improve China's security?

~~~
dirtyid
The physical island is a huge geopolitical asset or security risk. See island
chain strategy. Also look up elevation map of Taiwan + Taiwan straight.
Chinese coast is very shallow and hard to hide Chinese subs, whereas east
Taiwan drops straight into deep water which enables China to hide subs which
is important in controlling regional waters against US Navy. Regardless, the
Chinese military planning certainly doesn't pretend the land isn't there. The
government (from both sides) just doesn't recognize each others sovereignty.

~~~
shkkmo
China does not occupy Taiwan, so those points are moot.

What security interest is served by censoring discussion of the existence of
Taiwan?

This is a political issue, not a security issue.

~~~
dirtyid
It's both. Politics is a huge part, reunification is #1 CPC policy
consideration since founding and her entire legitimacy rests on it. Occupation
goal is by 2050. No one is censoring discussion of Taiwan? If you're talking
flag emoji that's equivalent to banning confederate flag in Chinese context.
People talk about Taiwan in China all the time but under context of
reunification. On refusing sovereignty claims. If Taiwan was sovereign they
would be free to host US bases which challenges Chinese security, particularly
shipping lanes where China imports oil. China is not energy secure. Taiwan has
been a Chinese "redline" for many reasons.

~~~
shkkmo
> If Taiwan was sovereign they would be free to host US bases

Taiwan is clearly sovereign, anyone saying otherwise is ignoring reality or
avoiding offending China.

The US had military bases in Taiwan for 20 years, the military bases were
removed to assist with normalizing relations with China.

I can absolutely see why insisting that the US not place military bases on
Taiwan is a security concern, but this has nothing to do with the sovereignty
of Taiwan. (Similar to US concerns about Russian military installationa in
Cuba which were unrelated to Cuba's sovereignty.)

The institutional double-speak around the sovereignty of Taiwan is purely
political and has no impact on actual security issues.

------
tempsy
Another incident: A fan at a 76ers game was escorted out after shouting "free
Hong Kong" before a game against a CBA team in Philadelphia yesterday.

[https://twitter.com/Christie_Ileto/status/118177972224357580...](https://twitter.com/Christie_Ileto/status/1181779722243575809?s=20)

~~~
YayamiOmate
It would be interesting what wpukd happen if people on NBA games started
wearing FreeHK shirts. Would they be ejected during game? That would really
mean that china effectively censors US citizens.

Also what would happen if crowd pulled HK support en masse, escort out
everyone?

~~~
Rebelgecko
We may see in a few weeks: [https://www.gofundme.com/f/free-hong-kong-tshirts-
on-nba-ope...](https://www.gofundme.com/f/free-hong-kong-tshirts-on-nba-
opening-night)

------
Knufen
It is scary to see how much more China and the CCP can get away with, I'm
looking forward to seeing where it will all end up. Probably not in a good
place. Money talks, morals? Not so much.

~~~
dekhn
Right now the leadership in China is terrified! They've been able to get away
with a lot, basically using their economic power to get other countries to
look the other way with regards to their behavior (suppressing their people,
stealing IP, bullying smaller nations). but the moment they got called on it
and people started moving their operations to other countries (previously
considered "impossible"), they saw the economic impact. And they realized that
they can't get away with what they're doing if they aren't providing their
citizens with a constantly growing economy, their citizens are going to start
getting angry again.

It's clear now much of the Chinese leadership were a paper tiger and now that
the heat is on, they don't really have a strategy. They just never expect
enough people to call them out publicly and embarass them. Maybe they'll keep
hold of their own country by suppressing information flow, countrywide
surveillance, but whatever power they had over the global economy: severely
diminished.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Their economy is also massively indebted, they got hooked on debt to a degree
many here would consider reckless. They've wasted a tremendous amount of money
on useless construction, which may be one downfall of a planned economy.

~~~
srajabi
I was intrigued by your comment, so I went looking around:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt)

It looks like their debt is only 15% of their GDP? I've heard the China <>
Debt thing before and I don't understand it. Could you explain what you mean?

~~~
bzbarsky
I'm by no means an expert, but my understanding is that China's debt problem
is not external debt, but internal debt. To put what the more negative takes
are saying in US-related terms it's as if the mortgage-lending practices of
the mid-2000s were done on a much larger scale (involving not just housing
loans but almost everything funded by borrowing, including industry,
infrastructure, etc) and for a much longer time.

As a result, there are lots of loans on the books that will never be paid off
as things stand, and unlike the US there is no mechanism in the financial
system to acknowledge any of that on a gradual basis (loan writedowns, etc),
so the loans keep being rolled over instead.

At some point, reality will need to be faced, at which point there will be
either massive financial system issues, much worse than what the US had going
on in 2008, or huge government bailouts. And in the latter case, that implies
even more financial repression or taxation, or both, than is already going on,
with resulting decreases in economic well-being for urban areas in China,
which is the thing that _really_ worries the CCP.

If the economy grows faster than the "bad loan" burden, then this problem is
basically temporary, and rolling the loans over until the economy has grown
enough to just deal with the issue is the right strategy. It's hard to come by
plausibly correct (or even unbiased) estimates of either economic growth or
the size of the "bad loan" burden, but almost all the estimates I've seen seem
to agree that for a long time the "bad loan" burden was growing faster than
the economy. Whether that's still the case, I don't know.

------
AcerbicZero
So, Twitter et al. have been training corporations to pay attention to various
levels of public outrage, and the public outrage has been training
corporations on how to mitigate that outrage without impacting the bottom line
too dramatically, and now we're surprised these pliable flexible money gumbys'
are bending to the whim of someone with (potentially) _more_ money?

As a bonus, "we" (The West) have recently demonstrated hundreds upon hundreds
of examples of free speech being relegated to a distant second to certain
"special" feelings our society holds, and now "we" are trying to tell China
that their certain special feelings aren't worthy of this level of protection?

If our values mean nothing to us, then there is no reason to be surprised that
those values mean just as little to others.

~~~
AzzieElbab
Since Twitter is blocked in China, I bet it is corpotate regional managers who
are flipping out about posts that reach maybe 1 percent of China's population

~~~
tandr
1% of 1'500'000'000 is 15 million people

~~~
AzzieElbab
True but nevertheless insignificant

------
greggman2
I'm mixed on this. I'm 100% for Chung “Blitzchung” Ng Wai to express his
support for Hong Kong. I'm not so sure it's okay for him to do it on
Blizzard's show/event.

27 years ago Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night
Live when it was broadcast live. She's was arguably right to critize the Pope
but was she right to do it from Saturday Night Live's Live broadcast? IIRC
because of that incident SNL added a 5 or 10 second delay so they'd have time
to cut if something similar happened again.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturda...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturday_Night_Live_performance)

Anyway, I'm support of the HK protestors and having written that in public now
I wonder if I'm banned from China. I also believe I want US businesses to all
stick up for freedom of expression and not sell out to China. I'm just saying
in the context of using the Blizzard event I'm not so ready to condemn
Blizzard's initial response. In the new context of what's happened since then
though I hope they change their direction.

IIRC Sinead O'Connor was pretty much universally condemned even though if I
understand correctly she was right.

~~~
moksly
I don’t know about SNL, but the thing that pisses me off about Blizzard is
that they have been parading around as a company that supports human rights.
They recently held a pro LGBT+ event, they’ve held numerous humanitarian aid
campaigns and they even have a statue outside their headquarters that features
one of their core values “Every voice matters”.

You simply can’t do all that, and then go against democracy and basic human
rights like this, and then expect people to not call you out for your
bullshit.

~~~
rospaya
Not to denigrate supporting any kind of human rights, but promoting LGBT and
humanitarian causes in almost any western country won't lose them a single
customer. Today, that's the easy way out. 20-30 years ago it would be gutsy.

~~~
Fnoord
It can still cost them customers, e.g. hardcore Christians. Today, it is still
brave, just less than 20-30 years ago.

Throughout the entire existence of WoW they've actively prohibited LGBT
community to express themselves in WoW. While they did nothing about virtual
RP sex on RP servers.

------
99_00
Xi Jinping Thinks China Is World's Only Sovereign State

[https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13497/china-sovereign-
sta...](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13497/china-sovereign-state)

~~~
cooljacob204
That article is jumping to a heck of a lot of conclusions with no real basis.

~~~
dirtyid
It's Gordon G. Chang who has been calling for Chinese collapse via all sorts
of deceptive narratives in the last 20 years. No one who studies China takes
him seriously.

~~~
jessaustin
I had to wonder about the fascination with a fairly innocuous decades-old
opinion of Pres. Carter's. Talk about beating a dead horse...

------
dak1
The CCP can move quickly and decisively to ban access to the world's 2nd
largest market, and it uses that power to chill speech and force governments
and companies to take actions it wants that are antithetical to a free
society.

Small nations and individual companies cannot stand up to this coercion
individually, and free, market economies lack the organization to respond in a
cohesive way.

The optimistic belief that economic growth and market integration would
liberalize authoritarian or totalitarian countries should by now be wholly
debunked.

The CCP is responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities and violations
of human rights today, and has largely managed to silence the world from even
speaking out against its actions.

Individuals should do everything they can to express their opposition to this
state of affairs, but the only viable response is for the governments of free
peoples who care for and value these freedoms to jointly act in response.

If we value freedom over money, there must be economic consequences (including
economic isolation) for China for its actions, and we should not be reluctant
about promoting these freedoms globally, including within China.

The GATT and WTO rules in place today are not sufficient to counter the threat
China represents. It's time to rewrite the rules of global trade to prevent
the CCP from freely benefiting from trade while simultaneously using it as a
hammer to blunt and distort the values that enabled the markets from which it
benefits.

~~~
jackcodes
Do you think a union would hold any power, almost like an ‘accredited travel
agent’? Sign up and show you won’t bend you initial ethics to suit China.

~~~
nordsieck
> Do you think a union would hold any power

Power over whom?

China? No.

US Companies? It depends on the context: how damaging would a strike be, and
how much of the important people can you get to join?

In the context of pro gaming, I have serious doubts that any union is viable
outside games with a franchise model. There are just too many hungry people
and too few spots at the top to ever have a meaningful strike.

Even with a franchise, the result of a Union forming may just be the
dissolving of the franchise model (or the failure of the game as an esport)
rather than the Union achieving political power.

------
aasasd
Cory Doctorow and Neal Stephenson both have entire novels featuring in-game
markets of MMOs (‘For the Win’ and ‘Reamde’). Hopefully the authors have done
more research than I did, but the claim is that MMOs have multibillion-dollar
markets of in-game items and currency, with the companies running the games
thus controlling the flow of money. And the markets can be used for
supranational transfer or laundering. And plenty of people in China, India and
elsewhere are farming in-game gold full-time.

Would Blizzard give up such a segment to let some dudes make a few loud
comments?

------
meowface
I wonder if this will affect the Starcraft 2 Nation Wars tournament that's
currently ongoing. China, Hong Kong, and "Chinese Taipei" (as Blizzard insists
the team be called in the tournament) are all participants in the tournament,
though the Chinese team just happened to recently eliminate the Hong Kong
team, so it would have to be another country's team to pull an "I am
Spartacus" in support of the banned player and Hong Kong.

~~~
bena
You do know why "Chinese Taipei" is contentious right? The island of Taiwan
houses an entity that considers itself the rightful government of China in
exile, the Republic of China (ROC).

Mainland China is currently governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Both governments consider themselves "China". They consider the other
government as an illegitimate entity occupying territory illegally.

The PRC refuses to deal with any nation that treats the ROC as a nation. That
means it is not recognized by the UN, the Olympic committee, etc. If you make
any sort of inference that the island of Taiwan is not the territory of and
under the control of the PRC, they will flat out drop your ass.

The compromise is "Chinese Taipei". Because "Taiwan" sounds too much like its
own nation to the PRC and "Taiwan, China" sounds too much like a subordinate
of the PRC to the ROC.

So it's not Blizzard that's insisting the team be called Chinese Taipei, it's
the PRC and ROC. Although, they'd much rather the other government not exist.

------
asar
Interesting that the stock price of Activision Blizzard is basically unfazed.

~~~
hguant
Should go up tbh - they've shown investors that they value shareholder
profits/keeping markets open more over all other considerations (fanbase, PR,
not being hypocrites, etc).

------
marv3lls
"but it is incredibly disturbing that American companies would willingly
participate in the Chinese government’s propaganda campaign."

Not counting the U.S. media, of course!

------
mytailorisrich
And that's why FIFA bans all political displays or comments, and displays of
any symbols in general...

I expect Blizzard to follow suit.

~~~
carapace
But aren't FIFA a bunch of morally bankrupt scam artists?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA#Corruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA#Corruption)

~~~
jessaustin
Isn't that what GP said? Banning speech sure seems "morally bankrupt" to me...

~~~
carapace
You're right! Now that I think about it, my comment could have been a snarky
joke. I didn't think it through. (^_^)

------
aagha
It's interesting to see that no where in this thread or in the Vice article
posted by OP, is Robert Kotick's name mentioned.

It's not until Kotick, Morhaime (Blizzard co-founder) and Allen Brack
(President) start feeling the heat will they reverse course.

~~~
MS90
Morhaime stepped down as CEO last year, and his advisory role with the company
ended back in April.

------
UseStrict
It's a weird day when I find myself agreeing with Marco Rubio. But it's true,
China is effectively attempting a global chill on free speech by gating market
access. If we don't stand up now, the effects will be felt long into the
future.

~~~
tempsy
Something tells me this will end with Apple in the middle. Can't think of a
company more exposed to both China and the US.

~~~
ciabattabread
Apple’s rainy day fund will come in real handy.

------
interdrift
Welp, I guess we had a good run. Time to show the Chinese that they will never
take away our freedom

------
eutropia
Stock is down ~3.5% since Monday, is that a meaningful swing?

Not sure if shareholders care...

------
rossdavidh
And yet, I see absolutely no talk, even from the U.S. Senators who are quoted,
of the U.S. actually doing anything about it that would make a difference.

~~~
_bxg1
To be honest, for once the market seems to be doing a pretty good job.

------
jackcodes
Let them have their LAN party

------
Schnitz
Blizzard has shown their true colors: make money at all costs.

~~~
ProAm
This is almost every company ever to be fair.

~~~
johnzim
True, but it hurts more when it's a company with such a great history and
strong relationship with its customers.

I think people don't really care about what Nestlé or Monsanto do because
they've never really cared about those companies, but people care about
Blizzard.

------
Exquisites
I would love to see protesters at Blizzcon wearing the HK protester attire.

------
darawk
It's almost as though we need a president interested in some kind of
trade...conflict with China. If only we had one of those.

~~~
himlion
I hate Trump for a lot of reasons, but I support his way of dealing with
China.

~~~
buzzdenver
He's not even pretending to care for the oppressed people in China. They'll
get thrown under the bus just like the Kurds are right now with Turkey.

------
JoachimSchipper
Earlier discussion on (mostly) the same topic:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21201768](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21201768).

------
eberfreitas
Real question: How is what China is doing any different from what we've seen
the US do to Venezuela (the Adobe incident) or even Cuba for that matter?

~~~
gamblor956
The US issued sanctions against Venezuelan government officials known to be be
corrupt; the sanctions don't apply to all, or even most, of Venezuela. Adobe
simply used those sanctions as an excuse to cut off support for everyone in
Venezuela so they could pull out without having to refund anyone.

Also, with respect to both countries, we aren't trying to use our US economic
power to force a _Venezuelan_ or _Cuban_ company to do what we want.

The US government has made its stance toward both countries clear for the last
several decades, it's not like they tricked US businesses into going into
Venezuela or Cuba and then tried to pull the rug out from beneath them.

~~~
LocalH
Adobe changed their stance on refunds, I think. Unfortunately, it seems that
the link on their site[0], which I read on Monday in English, has apparently
been replaced with a Spanish version. Machine translation of relevant quote:

>If you purchased your products directly with Adobe, you will receive a refund
before the end of the month for any license period paid and not received. We
are working for our distributors to act in the same way.

[0] [https://helpx.adobe.com/la/x-productkb/policy-
pricing/execut...](https://helpx.adobe.com/la/x-productkb/policy-
pricing/executive-order-venezuela.html)

------
coralreef
Propose that a suspended player is a US citizen. This feels unconstitutional /
illegal, as Blizzard has taken away the player's ability to earn a living
based in their political views. The guise of suspension under the violation of
"disparagement" feels weak.

I'd be interested in seeing how a lawsuit plays out.

~~~
umanwizard
There is no law or constitutional provision in the US that says you can’t
refuse to work with someone for their political views.

~~~
roflchoppa2
idk man it sounds like discrimination to me.

~~~
gruez
It's legal to discriminate as long as it's not a protected class.

~~~
montagg
There are some states, like CA, where discrimination based on political views
is illegal, but it’s practically-speaking not too hard for an employer to find
a more traditional performance reason that may be related to political views.
Caveat: IANAL

Source: [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-
discri...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-
based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html)

~~~
umanwizard
Even then, that refers to employees specifically, and the person in question
is probably not a Blizzard employees.

------
Knove
First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to
express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of
speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves
national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by
some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911,
publicly declaring that 911 was a Great National Renaissance Movement .)(More
seriously, it involves the level of the Chinese nation.) To say that, I just
want to express that this is the common view of the Chinese people at present.
That's why there are Chinese people who support 911 on Twitter. They want to
express that Americans support Hong Kong's behavior. In their hearts, it's the
same behavior as supporting 911. While being indoctrinated with China's
harmfulness theory by the media, I hope that you can rationally understand
these recent events, rather than trust the media.

~~~
jschwartzi
The difference here is that although the US government doesn't want us to talk
about September 11th, I'm totally free to do so at any time, on any channel,
using any medium. I can freely call George W. Bush an idiot and a dupe for
playing right into Osama Bin Laden's plans. I can say that the TSA and the
further restrictions on freedom of movement have been one of the worst aspects
of the post-911 world in the US. And the persistent culture of fear that has
grown up as I've become an adult has been a scary thing for me to face. And
I'm free to say that the news media in the US is creating this culture and
sustaining it.

I can say all of this without fear of recrimination from my government. I'm
enrolled in TSA Precheck, never harassed by the police, can move freely within
the country, and am free to buy or view whatever I like in spite of my lack of
support for that part of our national government. One of our founding fathers
is famously quoted as saying "I do not agree with what you say, but I will
fight to the death for your right to say it." We take that statement as
gospel. For us to censor our citizens is an affront to our national dignity.

Can you say that the student protests in Tianenmen Square were met with a
police response that was massive overkill? Or that attempts to censor Hong
Kong's free speech are unacceptable? Or that free speech against your
government is an inalienable right? Because if not then there's not really
much similarity between the US and China despite how it may seem to you.

~~~
htfu
Voltaire's biographer was a founding father?

------
macspoofing
I don't think it should be an international incident. The reality is that
corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints, and nobody should
care what their opinion is on controversial policies. They make and sell
products and that's all they should stick too. Why should Blizzard get in the
middle of what's happening between China and Hong Kong? And to be clear, it
isn't just Chinese government versus Hong Kong protestors. The Chinese public,
the people who buy and consume Blizzard products, also have very strong
opinions on this, as does the Hong Kong public.

The problem is that these brands also want the brownie points. So they'll
cherry pick safe policies to loudly support when it doesn't negatively affect
their bottom line, but stay quiet when it does, making them look like
hypocrites and pissing off everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
macspoofing
>But they MUST. That’s the issue.

Then what is the right answer? HK independence?

>There is no such thing as remaining neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. That is insane.

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

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

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

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

