Politics has always been a topic which revs up a storm of political debates. The article was about the latest games for the Switch, but just because the picture used for the article was Tracer, that revved up a lot of "#BOYCOTTBLIZZARD" comments, which was probably the reason it got deleted. The article wasn't even about Blizzard, just a port of Overwatch was listed as an upcoming game for the Switch, so it didn't really have anything to do with the controversy or topic really besides "It's a game by Blizzard".
I made Sheldon & Mr. Randoms back on Flipnote Hatena, now i'm a kangaroo mod that has a funko pop collection!
I'm not keen politics since that stuff is spooky, I'd rather watch SpongeBob over Fox News anyways!
Can I just say that people generally misunderstand what "Freedom of Speech" actually is. It's something from government not from private institutions. Nintendo Life moderating comments and even Blizzard doing what they did is not a violation of "Freedom of Speech" because Nintendo Life and Blizzard are not governments.
Now, that doesn't mean I agree with what Blizzard has done. Them choosing to so visibly moderate their platform in that way is a very political statement in and of itself. But them moderating in that way IS a form of speech and they are NOT a government. If anything saying that kind of moderation is a violation of "freedom of speech", implying that it shouldn't be legally allowed, is in itself against freedom of speech /2c
@skywake I’m sorry to say that I have to disagree (or at least want to explain it a bit different).
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with government and is not to be used only when referring to government.
Some governments do not allow freedom of speech. Such as China (and many other countries). So freedom of speech and governments do not go hand in hand.
In the West, most of us have freedom of speech as inshrined in law. So the government is not technically allowed to take away our freedom of speech.
Companies like Blizzard and NintendoLife do not have laws that dictate freedom of speech to all. They are businesses that have codes of conduct and all the rest of it which enables them to legally restrict free speech. And they have every right to do that. However, we also have every right to question it and call them to account.
It is therefore correct to say they are taking away our freedom of speech. Because they are. However, they are technically allowed to do this because they are not a government that has passed a law giving everyone freedom of speech.
@Kienda It’s a double-edged sword though. You still have the freedom to speak your mind on certain platforms, just not the ones that mods feel it is not appropriate. It’s totally different than the government making it against the law. Do business owners have the right to ask customers to leave who are disturbing others? It’s very much the same kind of principle in my opinion.
As for Hong Kong, I feel solidarity with many of the sentiments of the movement. Seeing people fighting for the protection of their democratic process is encouraging. The problem is Hong Kong is very much a region that has been circling the drain for a while now. Even before China took it back in ‘97, the income inequality, inflation, and housing prices drove much of the population into desperation and poverty. I’ve been to the city multiple times and love it, but it is shocking to see families living in an apartment with a kitchen the size of a closet at an exorbitant price.
In some sense it’s helpful to contextualize the Hong Kong situation as just part of a great movement we are seeing worldwide. Societies lashing out in all directions, trying to find the source of their social and economic woes. China is just the one that is pressing on the wound this time.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with government and is not to be used only when referring to government. Some governments do not allow freedom of speech. Such as China (and many other countries). So freedom of speech and governments do not go hand in hand.
Let me put this at the top so it's unavoidable and clear. I agree with you.... but if you are going to be vocal about something like this I think it's important that you're vocal about the right thing. Otherwise your opponents can easily dismiss you as being misinformed. Not that I think anyone on this forum is going to be disagreeing with you on this topic in particular. Just something to keep in mind. Be outraged but be correct
So read my post again, I didn't say anything about all governments supporting freedom of speech. I said that freedom of speech as a concept is something from government. Freedom of speech is to stop governments from censoring or punishing it's citizens for saying something they don't want to be said.
It doesn't mean that you can force a newspaper to publish a story they don't agree with or run an ad they don't like. It doesn't mean you can't be boycotted for saying something people disagree with. It doesn't mean that you can't be hit with a civil case for defamation. It doesn't mean that a forum can't moderate their comments. Why? Because these things are between citizens and not between citizens and the state.
As I said, I don't agree with Blizzards actions and I think that should go without saying. And yes the way they reacted at the very least gives a strong impression that they are not supportive of freedom of speech. But not because they censored someone. They appear anti-free speech because they were super heavy handed in reacting to someone who voiced a pro-free-speech position. The censoring itself isn't the issue, it's what and how they censored it.
Basically, legally what Blizzard did isn't in violation of free speech. So don't have a go at them for that. However politically it's a pretty loud statement against it, be outraged about that. Just be aware that these are two different things that shouldn't be confused.
@skywake I think we agree that Blizzard was allowed to restrict Blitzchung from expressing his thoughts.
However - I personally would still class this as freedom of speech being taken away. I also understand why they did it and why NintendoLife restricts comments and so forth. They aren't platforms for free speech. I get it.
A government that has a constitution which grants freedom of speech to individuals will illegally breach that constitution if they suppress freedom of speech.
A company that has rules against certain speech is clearly allowed to enforce its rules.
I don't have freedom of speech at work. I didn't have freedom of speech at school. I do have freedom of speech in my own home, although in my own home I could control the speech because if someone says something I disagree with, the consequence is they get kicked out of my house.
Blitzchung was not speaking on a platform that permits freedom of speech or expression. He signed a contract. He broke the terms and received a harsh penalty.
I get what you're saying, but I still class it as freedom of speech and I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Having said all of that, I also don't think freedom of speech was the main problem in all of this.
Can I just say that people generally misunderstand what "Freedom of Speech" actually is. It's something from government not from private institutions. Nintendo Life moderating comments and even Blizzard doing what they did is not a violation of "Freedom of Speech" because Nintendo Life and Blizzard are not governments.
That's not true at all. The concept of freedom of speech has never exclusively been about government censorship, not in the western philosophical tradition at least. The various european philosophers who introduced the concept (e.g Milton, Locke, Mill) all make the distinction between coercion by social forces and private institutions (usually religions) and then government laws. Milton coined the term "Tyranny of Customs". Mill called it the "Tyranny of the Majority", both referring to this distinction.
The american founding fathers were quite clear on this too. If you read the letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Adams says that we have not created freedom of speech (referring to the first amendment of the constitution) because it's not something that's ever existed, but we have created the foundations so it may one day exist.
The question of whether private companies should protect speech is a very different issue in my mind. I would say it's a matter of the stated purpose of their business (e.g no-one really cares about having free speech at McDonalds or Starbucks because that's just not the point of those businesses) and also a matter of their market share (Nintendolife blocking a comment is very different than youtube blocking a video or Amazon refusing to sell a book. The latter 2 are monopolies in their fields, so some regulation is justified)
@Dezzy
I'm talking about Freedom of Speech in the practical, real world sense. i.e. the Freedom of Speech that is legally given to western citizens by governments. And in that sense when we talk about it we mean freedom from government limiting speech.
I'd also add that discussions on this from 100s of years ago on speech aren't quite as relevant today as they would have been at the time. Even 50 years ago the idea of a platform where you could post your opinions to the world would have been pretty out there. Even as late as the 70s and 80s the idea of a private company "limiting speech" was limited to things like a TV channel choosing not to air your vox-pop on the nightly news. Now it's potentially everywhere.
One of my points was that the people who have these platforms should have the ability to moderate. If they were unable to do so that would be a limit on THEIR freedom of speech. Personally the only time I see internet moderation as a violation of the freedom of speech that matters is when it's governments putting down filters and taking down sites.....
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
Forums
Topic: Why is NintendoLife censoring comments on Hong Kong and Blizzard?
Posts 21 to 40 of 59
Sorry, this topic has been locked.