BlizzCon Starts With an Apology, But Blizzard Doesn't Change Its Stance

Blizzard President J. Allen Brack started off BlizzCon by apologizing for suspending a 'Hearthstone' pro after they made a pro Hong Kong statement.

[Smokehouse]

Lol! Uh huh..

[CaptainObvious878]

You'll notice he's wearing a pride badge near his neck.

Guess what was blurred out in the china blizcon stream?

[jonesmiller04101]

Captain Sharp 👏 💯

[GameBoyColor]

"we're sorry we got caught, we'll try not to next time" essentially

[sander9702]

It's more of "We're sorry you feel that way".

[rainslacker]

They aren't required to acquiesce to the demands or beliefs of the community. But they will receive criticism for their actions or views. Saying they're sorry is more just saying that they apologize they can't do anything for those that disagree, because they have their own views.

For the record, I think they were in the wrong for what they did, just saying that they are allowed to have their own beliefs.

[Godmars290]

The issue is the willingness of a seemingly Western, democratic, company bowing to the political preferences of communist authoritarian government. Bowing to the preferences of a larger market over the smaller one its based in.

Either isn't generally good for us in terms of consumerism or general/political expressionism.

[jonesmiller04101]

To them it's not about principle and not even about being impartial. It's about 💵

[rainslacker]

I know what the issue is, and as I said, I think they were wrong with what they did. But, as a western company, in a democratic free country, they are right to do what they want within the laws of the country itself.

They're doing what they're doing because of money. I doubt they really care about the politics of it beyond that.

@Rare

No, I wouldn't change my stance. I believe they have the right to do what they want on their platform, with their content. That's what freedom of expression is all about. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean that I have a right to take that away from them. I have the right to disagree with them, and if I so choose, test their will towards enforcing it through some sort of protest. But, I would still be subject to the consequences of my actions. In this case, if I were to protest on their platforms, I'd likely be moderated or banned.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That's just as meaningful to living in a free democratic society with freedom of speech as standing up for what you believe in on other issues. If not more so, because one day, you may be in the position of being silenced.

Defending someone's right does not mean that you agree with what they're saying. In turn, I am free to criticize them as I see fit, they are free to listen or not, and the circle goes on indefinitely.

In this case, I don't agree with Blizzard, but they are free to do as they want, as they aren't not required to allow people free speech on their platforms. I'll personally criticize them for their stance, because I think they were wrong on many levels. Both philosophically and politically, and I believe they took action despite what happened not being against their rules of conduct at the time.

[Godmars290]

@rainslacker:
Trouble is, "in current era", what someone else says, which you would defend, often entails removing your right to say anything. Its a tightrope that shouldn't be solely balanced by the amount of money you have, have access to or even claim to have access to.

China is attempting to dictate what people from other countries say and think about it through their economic presence, and companies like Blizzard are all too willing to do their bidding for profit alone. At the cost of the moral awareness to defend what others have to say.

[rainslacker]

Your argument states that Blizzard is removing someone's right to say anything, and by context you mean say something about the political situation. They haven't removed that right from the person. They don't have that kind of power to completely censor the person, or those who want to talk about it. The fact we're talking abotu it proves that. That person, and we, are free to go and speak our mind on the topic, rally others around our beliefs, or protest in any way he sees fit.

What Blizzard has removed is his ability to do so on their platforms, either directly or through those that use their content. He can still try to do those things, but he'll end up facing whatever consequence Blizzard sets out to impose. At which point, he can still go elsewhere. The government won't get involved, and outside him doing something illegal to say what he has to say, all Blizzard has the right to do is moderate their own platforms in any way they see fit.

I know what China is trying to do, and while that's a good discussion to talk about, it's not directly the topic of the article at hand, or what I was replying to. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing so people understand that I'm not defending Blizzard's actions, but I will always defend free speech, even if it's Blizzard right to exercise in a way that I don't agree with.

It's not a inalienable right granted by law that someone is allowed to say whatever they want, wherever they want. The right to free speech only applies to the government censoring people or preventing them from speaking as they want, outside some specefic exclusions. It also prevents government from from seeking recourse should you say something that they don't want you to say...again, outside specific exclusions. Free speech does not extend to not having to face repurcussions due to whatever speech, action, or belief one may have that may affect another person negatively, whether civil or criminal.

I don't disagree with people that what Blizzard did was wrong, I just disagree with the notion that people think that Blizzard is required to allow these people to say what they want on their platform, and that is what I was responding to. There is a moral and ethical side to the discussion, and I'm trying to do both sides, while everyone is arguing with me only on the moral side, seemingly thinking that I am somehow defending Blizzards actions.

It's just part of my pragmatic nature to point out that Blizzard isn't required to allow these people to do or say what they want on their platforms. They are given that right by the same right that gives us free speech due to corporations now being considered individuals, and they've had that right long before that even happened because of what free speech applies to to begin with. I don't agree with Blizzard on this case, and I will criticize it based on that merit, but I won't say that they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights that are allowed to me by law, while also saying they aren't allowed to exercise that right because I disagree with them.

On the moral side, yes, what they are doing is wrong. On the ethical side, it's just as wrong to say they aren't allowed to exercise their rights because I disagree with them, as some are claiming that blizzard is wrong for censoring others.

While it'd be nice if it could go both ways, it just doesn't always happen like that, and money may be the reason for this scenario in the article, but the reasons for it are inconsequential to the right of the bearer.

[Silly gameAr]

Some brass balls there.

[Specter229]

Does it really matter? All the people who were against Blizzard all of a sudden dont care anymore because Diablo was announced. I'm still not touching their games to hell with them.

[MeteorPanda]

Who is to say they're the same ppl? I'm not buying d4 and I loved 1 and 2, give some ppl credit.

Loudness is not an indicator of the majority

[brrdat]

same. gamers lack integrity because most of them are depressed as shit and use games as a coping mechanism. hard to blame them.

[yoshatabi]

Lol what? That's a stupid assumption. You can literally say that about any hobby

[yoshatabi]

Life is too short to not experience new videogames. Y'all take life too seriously. Not saying you should buy day one or anything. Just buy it when it's super cheap or something.

[Muzikguy]

I don't have faith they'd do Diablo justice anymore even though I am a little bit curious how the new game will be. I haven't bought any Activision, Blizzard, EA, or Ubisoft games in quite some time. It's kind of nice actually and I still have tons of games to play without being nickel and dimed to death

[jonesmiller04101]

I am very excited and impressed with what I saw from Diablo 4 but I agree. To hell with them. This is bigger than games.

[Cmv38]

I thought the gaming community was against sjws? Last I checked. But people are mad at blizzard for attempting to silence an sjw. Gamers are a fickle bunch.

[Teflon02]

😂 😂

[Specter229]

How the heck did you get SJW from what's going on in Hong Kong?

[gamer7804]

I’m not sure how social justice fits into this at all... nice try though

[xTonyMontana]

SJWs are liberal lefty scumbags and their haters are trump supporting fascists.. embellished somewhat for effect. Regardless of where you stand though, all of them will agree on one thing, democracy is good and in the case of Americans, their first amendment. That's what riled up people with Blizzard.

[bluefox755]

Weird how the "fascists" are the ones calling for free speech, and the "liberals" are the ones calling for censorship. We live in strange times.

[CaptainObvious878]

You are right about your initial description on sjws, but the rest of what you said is absolute none sense.

You must have been living under a rock the past decade with noise cancelling headphones, because there' too many cases of leftist trying to silence and censor people and groups they don't like. There was a recent survey that found out that a large majority of millennials want to change the first amendment. Most leftists unequivocally DO NOT like the 1st amendment.

[bluefox755]

Wait...what? People being oppressed by the Chinese communist government are SJWs?

[Imalwaysright]

Strange thing to say considering that sjws are the ones constantly trying to silence and cancel people with dissenting views and opinions from their own while the anti-sjw crowd advocates for free speech. What Blizzard is doing is straight from the sjw playbook

[rainslacker]

Blizzard's reasons are about money, not because they are taking a stand on the issue itself. Too much business interest in China for them to allow dissent on their platforms. Not that that's better than SJW's but they had a valid business reason to do what they did.

SJW's like to feel they have some place in the stuff that they rail against, but for the most part, act like high school drama queens, and most of their woes they bring upon themselves, then feel like making everyone else suffer for it when people don't pander to them.

[brrdat]

there is a difference between someone who believes in human rights & social justice vs social justice warriors. the fact that you don't understand the difference makes me question your intelligence.

[rainslacker]

SJW is a term used for those who make unreasonable demands and claim oppression where it doesn't exist, then go on to harass anyone who opposes them.

The thing in Hong Kong is actual oppression, with the only demand being freedom from a communist dictatorship, with a guy who merely made a peaceful protest, and did nothing to try and harass or bring down anyone who disagreed with him...including Blizzard.

Those two things are really quite different. One is a respectful use of one's voice and resources to affect positive change for millions on a global scale, the other is just a bunch of bored people on the internet who can't look past their own ego or even be bothered to learn about the issues they rail against. Two guesses as to which is which.

[roadkillers]

Opinion: They stated that they rushed to a stance. It's not a good idea to rush to another stance. Something that they'll have to slowly correct. If they rush to the other stance than they are just catering to the public. I think it would be in their best interest to take their time and actually develop a moral stance that is not based solely off the public or money.

[bluefox755]

I'm okay with them rushing to the stance of "Okay, we're going to stop licking the boot of the oppressive Chinese government for profit." The public aren't being unreasonable, and they're right, which is why the backlash has been so overwhelming. Not sure we need to bring much nuance into the question of whether or not to support the oppressive Chinese government.

[rainslacker]

I thought they already said their stance was to not allow political discussion on their platforms? Rush or not, that's the stance they're taking, and there probably isn't much reason for them to revisit it from a business perspective. It might come to a head in the future though, if some targeted protest makes it impossible to ignore or moderate.

[LOGICWINS]

#TooLate

[porkChop]

This was such a non-apology it makes me sick. People were actually cheering him on even though he wasn't really saying anything of value. They admit they made the wrong decision, but they aren't going to undo it. They basically said actions speak louder than words and then refused to act. It's bullshit, and it's straight PR. But everyone just ate it up.

[gamer7804]

It wasn’t even an apology... it’s like if you do something bad to someone. And you say I apologize if that hurt your feelings. While not actually apologizing for the act, or any attempt at remedying it.

[Pacifico]

She shuda put her hair in a pony...itd make it more sincere

[staticall]

Wait, that was an apology? All i heard was «I'm sorry you think you deserve an apology» and a ton of bragging and butt-licking of visitors with «high standart we set for ourselves», «we're so grateful to you», «we have people from 59 countries». And «everyone's rights to express themselves, in all kinds of ways, in all kinds of places», yet they disabled a comment section, that's just a cherry on top.

He even have pauses between sentences, for applause, for G-d's sake. And people are eating it us and supporting this. Just wow.

[rainslacker]

I'm not going to try and defend them over their decision. I think they made the wrong choice, and they should remedy it since the guy didn't break any rules that were in place at the time.

But, I can also see why they wouldn't want that kind of discussion on their community pages, forums, or in stream chats. While many of us are willing to support the cause, many people tuning in aren't going there to hear about politics, and even if there are people there who like to discuss politics, politics tends to be a volatile topic, with a lot of idiots who love to put in their opinion when they really shouldn't.

[staticall]

While i see what you mean (and somewhat agree), i still don't understand why president of Blizzard lied, talking about the right to express themselves, when they (Blizzard) are taking this right away from people on their live broadcast? I mean, who cares if their live chat would have some chants and protests, aside from Blizzard? At first yes, there would be a lot of such messages and it might be annoying, but:
1) Blizzard did this to themselves. See, imo, if they didn't ban Blitzchung and, especially, took his earnings (at first) and didn't ban the casters, you know, people who couldn't do anything about it, this situation wouldn't happen in the first place. Would media write about it? No. Would youtubers make videos about that? No. Would fans be upset? No. I mean, would people constantly be chanting «Free Hong Kong» and protesting if Blizzard dindu nuffin? No, 99% wouldn't and you can easily ignore the remaining 1%.
2) after some time, it will die down. At least it would show that company is willing to allow people to express themselves and that would give a media and fans some points to defend the company.
IMO, it's like if a thief (it's just an analogy) would say «i promise to you, i'm a changed man, i would not steal from you ever again» just to steal from you 2 seconds later, just kind of dumb.

[rainslacker]

I'd like to continue the discussion, but feel it becomes more of a philosophical debate at this point. It'd also be one of me being pragmatic, and not really discussing my own personal views on what is right or wrong. Sometimes I take both sides, like here. I don't agree with Blizzard, but they are within their rights. I even agree with many of the things you say.

The jist of it being is that no one actually has the right to do anything they want on a private platform. The platform holder is free to make their own rules about what is allowed and what isn't. In Blizzards case, they said no political talk. That is blizzards right for those that use their content.

The right of free speech is purely protection from government censoring of one's right to speak in public or private. So, the government couldn't come in and say, "No, you can't talk about politics on Blizzards forums".

[staticall]

Sorry, i have a feeling that we have a fundamental misunderstanding. I do agree with you that they can control their private forums and private events. And if after the whole situation with «Free Hong Kong», they would just release a statement with explanation and maybe issue a warning to Blitzchung (not ban him outright and everyone around him, with taking his earnings away), that would go over so much better.

I have an issue with this «apology» speech from their president. He specifically said, «everyone's rights to express themselves, in all kinds of ways, in all kinds of places». I haven't seen an asterisk after that statement with clarification what places they mean by «all kinds of places», so «all kinds of places» does include their private forums, events and live chat too. But you can't «express yourself» there, because they disabled it. How can anyone trust them after this? No one was forcing him to say that. If i promise to not litter, for instance, i must follow through and not litter or else no one would trust me ever again, especially if i'm a billion+ dollar company.

P. S.: It reminds me of a George Carlin quote, «It's the old American double standard. Say one thing, do something different». And that's not okay and should never be okay, especially for a company like Blizzard who brags about «Every voice matters» as one of their core principals.

[sprinterboy]

The apology seemed awkward.

[AngelicToucH]

TBH it seems redundant to go against something you already done and it would be pathetic for the player as well to now accept it.

[Tross]

I’m hesitant to get involved in Hong Kong’s politics, not only because I don’t have a drop of Asian blood in me, but mostly because there is enough in the way of BS politics going on in my backyard. However, I don’t think I can in good conscience support a company that’s pro-fascism.

[AK91]

The Blizzard you know and love is long gone and if you still support this awful company then its your fault if you get burned by them.

[DreadGara]

Didn't make any sense to me, it's like they're apologizing to get people to buy their products. That's what they did with Blitzchung. They just did what they did to keep their game not banned from China.

[2ndhandcorn]

Seems like a plesant lady.

[gleepot]

They shouldn't change their stance.

[DVAcme]

"We're sorry about everything."
"Apology accepted. Are you gonna unban the players you censored?"
"LOL NOPE!

[Azurite]

I just entered the apology midway, for a moment I thought he was apologizing for the Diablo announcement from last year's BlizzCon.

[Gordoncordon]

so sad...

[CrimsonWing69]

It’s empty. If you’re truly sorry then you’ll sever ties with a company that is against the freedom of Hong Kong, but you won’t because you’d lose money and we all know you would choose money over morals.

[DrShoe]

Blizzard is not your ally.