Blizzard bans pro hearthstone player for supporting Hong Kong protests

[c00face]

If Blizzard is a company and doesn't take sides, why are they so f'ing left leaning? Lets not forget the amount of cosmetic, comic related material that Blizzard has published that was all leftist leaning politically.

"Blizzard doesn't take sides..." My ass.

 

But yes, if it was during live game play and tournament, should steer away from political discussion. The broadcast is for Hearthstone, not for pushing some agenda. But then again... The amount of times I have to listen to Blizzard during live broadcast calling a male a "female," they should abide by their own rules and regulation.

[Anomnomnomaly]

OK look at it this way... Blizzard is a private company and does not have to abide by certain constitutional standards... Legal ones yes... constitutional ones like 'free speech' nope... they're a private company. They own and operate the platform, they get to decide what happens on it.

 

So from a legal point of view.. and I'm certainly not a lawyer... they can ban anyone they choose if they want to.

 

But... they cannot stop anyone from rallying against such decisions, they can't stop public opinion going against them... they'll just weather the storm and hope everything settles down in a few days/weeks and goes back to normal. They've probably done the math and conforming to pressure to censor/ban anyone uttering anti China rhetoric is less costly that the economic cost in getting banned from one of the largest markets in the world. They're all about the money... they'll do whatever keeps the cash rolling in and losing a few hundred or thousand subscriptions... of which they might get 10-20% back in a month or two... is far the better option than losing tens of millions or subscriptions when China closes the great firewall on them.

[SansVarnic]

-= Moved to General Discussion =-

 

This not much in the way of Tech related. Sure its Blizzard but this is all political.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

2019 HEARTHSTONE® GRANDMASTERS OFFICIAL COMPETITION RULES v1.4 p.12, Section 6.1 (o)

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 will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.

 

bolded italic and underlined

 

i am pretty sure no company wants to deal with a colin kaepernick

just like the nfl should have nipped it in the butt right away blizz is

Surely Blizzard should simply have stated the comments of the caster are not the views of Blizzard. Distancing themselves from it while not actually censoring people personal views. They should behave equally for both sides of any argument. As long as the caster is not inciting hatred or breaking the law then Blizzard should be able to not suffer. Instead to the world it looks like they have no balls and capitulated to a little pressure. While it may allow them an easy path with regards to their Chinese market, this sort of thing leaves a bad taste and will almost certainly loose them customers in other countries as well as those gamers in China and Hong Kong who support the protests.

 

Personally I feel not company or government should interfere with the right of any individual to protest. 

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Distancing themselves from it while not actually censoring people personal views.

Would you be saying the same thing if the person had said "Palestine should not be recognized as a state" or "Israel is committing war crimes"?

 

I think it's best to just outright ban any politics and activism on their stream. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where every time I watch someone play a game I get a ton of political messages crammed down my throat.

There is a time and place to protests and activism, but there are also places where you should keep your political views to yourself. When you're a guest at a game tournament I would prefer if you keep silent about politics.

 

 

45 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

-= Moved to General Discussion =-

 

This not much in the way of Tech related. Sure its Blizzard but this is all political.

Since this thread isn't locked yet and it is by your own admission "all political", does that mean political discussion is now allowed on the forum?

[Arika]

I do side with Honk Kong in the current situation, but this guy should not have used this platform or his position to make this statement. 

[spartaman64]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Would you be saying the same thing if the person had said "Palestine should not be recognized as a state" or "Israel is committing war crimes"?

 

I think it's best to just outright ban any politics and activism on their stream. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where every time I watch someone play a game I get a ton of political messages crammed down my throat.

There is a time and place to protests and activism, but there are also places where you should keep your political views to yourself. When you're a guest at a game tournament I would prefer if you keep silent about politics.

 

 

Since this thread isn't locked yet and it is by your own admission "all political", does that mean political discussion is now allowed on the forum?

apparently yes or else those topics wont be allowed either

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Would you be saying the same thing if the person had said "Palestine should not be recognized as a state" or "Israel is committing war crimes"?

 

I think it's best to just outright ban any politics and activism on their stream. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where every time I watch someone play a game I get a ton of political messages crammed down my throat.

There is a time and place to protests and activism, but there are also places where you should keep your political views to yourself. When you're a guest at a game tournament I would prefer if you keep silent about politics.

I would not ban the individual for that either. Warnings should have been given IMO, especially for the other two casters. I know it is a difficult situation but we should also respect the individuals right to protest as well as free speech. As long as people remember that free speech does not give carte Blanche to say anything.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I do side with Honk Kong in the current situation, but this guy should not have used this platform or his position to make this statement. 

Throughout history people have used their position to get their message heard. From apartheid to lgbgt rights to climate change. Sometimes the only way to raise the profile of a cause you feel strongly about it to use whatever platform is available to you. I know it is not quite the same thing, but when the BBCs Planet Earth series was first shown in the US,  broadcasters removed Sir David Attenborough’s sections on climate change and extinction at the hand of man. A clear case of someone using their position to get a message across and a clear case of the land of the free censoring views they don’t agree with.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

apparently yes or else those topics wont be allowed either

I can see how some of those might be somewhat political in nature, but at least they have a strong relation to technology too. For example discussing the implication of a new law on software design, or changes to Windows which might break the law.

This thread is just "POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS oh and a game company did something related to POLITICS POLITICS!".

 

Surely you must see the difference?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

I would not ban the individual for that either. Warnings should have been given IMO, especially for the other two casters. I know it is a difficult situation but we should also respect the individuals right to protest as well as free speech. As long as people remember that free speech does not give carte Blanche to say anything.

I'm going to assume you mean "right to free speech" as a concept and not a literal law.

While I can agree that people should be free to express their beliefs, I can also see why some companies would not want that type of content on their platforms. The problem here is that it's politics being shoehorned into a completely non-political event, and as a result I believe it worsens the experience for the viewers. If I watched the Hearthstone tournament I would watch it for the card game, not to hear a bunch of political opinions.

It's the same as on this forum. I believe that banning politics is a good move because it increases the quality and focus of the discussions. Sometimes I don't want to get political opinions crammed down my throat, and it's nice to have some "safe space" for that.

[YellowJersey]

1) The rule they were deemed to break was vague and basically gave Activision Blizzard the right to kick out anyone they didn't like for doing anything they didn't like.

2) Banning the broadcasters is also bullshit.

3) Activision Blizzard's lying when they say they care about human rights. They only care about money and if that means siding with a brutal, oppressive regime then they'll gladly do it if it means a few more billions.

4) Is there some other planet I can move to? Maybe join Elon on his ride to Mars? Unlike Elon, I'm not so insistent about not dying on impact.

[Blademaster91]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I can see how some of those might be somewhat political in nature, but at least they have a strong relation to technology too. For example discussing the implication of a new law on software design, or changes to Windows which might break the law.

This thread is just "POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS oh and a game company did something related to POLITICS POLITICS!".

 

Surely you must see the difference?

I'm sorry but i don't, this isn't any more political than other tech news topics that are also somewhat political, LTT probably wouldn't discuss it on the WAN show anyway because of how controversial it is.

4 hours ago, jstudrawa said:

Money isn't the issue.

 

People are.  Always will be.  Human beings are shit when not accountable in any meaningful way.

No this is 100% because of money, Blizzard doesn't want to risk getting banned in China because a large amount of their profits come from players in China.

[Sauron]

4 hours ago, floofer said:

If that was the case then not firing the player would have gained them more potential buyers of the HK market, and the mainland would probably not have cared.

Nah, unfortunately that's not how this works. China doesn't mess around on this. Even the casters the guy was talking to instinctively ducked out of the shot out of fear for repercussions. HK 1) doesn't have a large enough market to balance a potential Chinese embargo and 2) wouldn't really have seen it as something Blizz did for them, because in the end common decency is expected even from corporations despite their track record.

 

This was purely a move to maintain good relations with the Chinese government. Censorship by definition. I wouldn't be surprised if they started banning people for saying they are from Taiwan, which according to Chinese officials isn't a country and is just a rebellious part of China - it's not any less "offensive" to the Chinese dictatorship than supporting HK protestors.

4 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

people who don't believe in diversity don't have enough of a sway to make them lose money.

Uhm... I'm sorry to kill your enthusiasm here but right now the most powerful man on the planet falls in that category. Fortunately (?) for Blizz he can be bought. Not that AB have been in any way political active in promoting acceptance of diversity, they've done the bare minimum if that...

 

So @spartaman64 may have been a little off the mark with the KKK but there are people, even in positions of power, that might object to the inclusion of certain minorities.

[TheVillageIdiot]

Blizzard has obviously not paid any attention to the political discussions had in chat...... In America it is illegal to discriminate against race , religion, creed. Corporate America should not be allowed to write the rules. Vote with your wallet. The only thing they understand. It is your right to have an unpopular opinion.

[pas008]

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

Surely Blizzard should simply have stated the comments of the caster are not the views of Blizzard. Distancing themselves from it while not actually censoring people personal views. They should behave equally for both sides of any argument. As long as the caster is not inciting hatred or breaking the law then Blizzard should be able to not suffer. Instead to the world it looks like they have no balls and capitulated to a little pressure. While it may allow them an easy path with regards to their Chinese market, this sort of thing leaves a bad taste and will almost certainly loose them customers in other countries as well as those gamers in China and Hong Kong who support the protests.

 

Personally I feel not company or government should interfere with the right of any individual to protest. 

Looks like they have no balls but they ban a player on first offense

That's balls and i like it

 

i don't watch sports to listen to other bullshit

Especially protests or politics

 

And good for your feelings

But your actions can have consequences if its on their platform

[Arika]

oooh boy the /r/Blizzard subreddit is an absolute shitshow at the moment 

 

Also i have zero doubts in my mind that Blitzchung knew this would happen, he knew Blizzard would strip his title, prize money and ban him. Its precisely why he did it.

[ARikozuM]

Capitalists siding with communists... Crossed off my bucket list. 

 

Don't @ me. 

[Retro_R]

Just to chime in, he broke rules, but personally, I think its a bit too much to fire the presenters, imo tho

[Suika]

"Blizzard doesn't want to pick a political side."
They just did. They chose China, because it'd make them more money. To quote a South Park episode, you have to lower your ideals of freedom to suck on the warm teet of China.

 

"He broke the rules he agreed to, so at the very least, he deserves his punishment."

Blizzard also fired the two casters, further solidifying the fact that they picked a political side. The rule was also very vague and open ended to prevent legal trouble, they could have not punished the guy and two casters, and he wouldn't have broken the rule. Also in a way, Blizzard is violating their own rules by offending other parties with their action.

 

"Blizzard is just another company trying to make money at the end of the day."

All the more reason to be upset. If a company like Activision-Blizzard supports the ideals of an oppressive regime all in the name of profit, then we as consumers have to assume that Activision-Blizzard shares the ideals of an oppressive regime and care very little for their consumers. If you suggest I shouldn't express my disgust towards Activision-Blizzard, do you support the ideals of an oppressive regime also?

[Mooshi]

13 hours ago, floofer said:

It's a pretty clear violation of Blizzard's rule there. The fact is Blizzard can't take any side in the conflict. It's a company, not a politician. 

By bringing this much attention to it, Blizz made it political.

[LeSheen]

13 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

yes and by viewing everyone as human i violated that same rule by offending the KKK

Did you stream your relationship on their platform? no? guess you did't violate it then with your bad comparison. I'm all for free speech (without hatred). But that includes that blizzard decides themselves what is acceptable on their platform.

[Gegger]

i partly agree with blizzard, the player shouldn't have used his platform to express political views, even though i hate what the Chinese government is doing with Hong Kong.

 

but it also seems like blizz is picking sides.

 

i also admire blitzchung for standing up for what i believe is right though.

 

also tencent has too much of a stake in like everything

[SaviorSix]

Nothing is going to come of this. People don’t honestly don’t care what a company does, just who does it. Blizzard released a pay-to-win model with Diablo 3, and made it online only, but people bought it. EA tried to the same thing, they were crucified.

[spartaman64]

6 hours ago, LeSheen said:

Did you stream your relationship on their platform? no? guess you did't violate it then with your bad comparison. I'm all for free speech (without hatred). But that includes that blizzard decides themselves what is acceptable on their platform.

you think if a female pro player comes on stage and talks about how she wants to inspire more girls to join esports they are going to close the stream and ban her for saying political stuff and offending misogynists? no ofc not because they wont lose large amounts of money from that

[LeSheen]

1 hour ago, SaviorSix said:

Nothing is going to come of this. People don’t honestly don’t care what a company does, just who does it. Blizzard released a pay-to-win model with Diablo 3, and made it online only, but people bought it. EA tried to the same thing, they were crucified.

This was met with a huge amount of backlash forcing them to close the "marketplace" and rework how drops work...

The always online became a necessary evil with the introduction of season, leader-boards and rewards. I would also prefer the option to play offline... but this would make most of these features impossible. And lets be honest not many people play diablo for the story. They (me included) play with friends or for the leaderboards.