LogFAQs > #928488886

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Blizzard bans and withholds prize money from hearthstone player for HK support
DoomTheGyarados 10/08/19 3:43:19 AM #23:	TomNook posted... DoomTheGyarados posted... The second half addresses everything else. Corporations do not have more right to profit than a human does their life and freedom. They did this purely so their profits would not be hurt in the face of, again, freedoms being taken away and murder. That is an immoral act. Fair enough, but I must ask you, where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed to do anything they want using a corporation's image if they feel it's for a stand where lives are at risk? This becomes a very tricky line. When there are multiple sides who are at odds, and lives are being lost on both (I'm speaking in general, not about China), how does the company choose who to allow to speak. Do they toss out all form of making money when people are pressuring them to air their political views, and insert messages into their own games to try and tame the landscape? There is clearly a line at some point where they must draw it because they wouldn't be a company much longer if they reluctantly accepted demands from all sides. I see nothing wrong with a video game company wanting nothing to do with people talking about politics. To me, them drawing a line right at the start is fine, because it fits with them preserving their brand. Hard to say, it is why I like evaluating things in an intelligent way on a case by case basis, because we have no need for our reactions to be uniform for non-uniform situations. I'll let you know when I think they have the right to police their games in such a manner. This is not one of those times! --- Sir Chris <cite>DoomTheGyarados posted [p:928488886] in Blizzard b... [t:78071335]...</cite> <quote>TomNook posted...</cite> <quote>DoomTheGyarados posted...</cite> <quote>The second half addresses everything else. Corporations do not have more right to profit than a human does their life and freedom. They did this purely so their profits would not be hurt in the face of, again, freedoms being taken away and murder. That is an immoral act.</quote> Fair enough, but I must ask you, where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed to do anything they want using a corporation's image if they feel it's for a stand where lives are at risk? This becomes a very tricky line. When there are multiple sides who are at odds, and lives are being lost on both (I'm speaking in general, not about China), how does the company choose who to allow to speak. Do they toss out all form of making money when people are pressuring them to air their political views, and insert messages into their own games to try and tame the landscape? There is clearly a line at some point where they must draw it because they wouldn't be a company much longer if they reluctantly accepted demands from all sides. I see nothing wrong with a video game company wanting nothing to do with people talking about politics. To me, them drawing a line right at the start is fine, because it fits with them preserving their brand.</quote> Hard to say, it is why I like evaluating things in an intelligent way on a case by case basis, because we have no need for our reactions to be uniform for non-uniform situations. I'll let you know when I think they have the right to police their games in such a manner. This is not one of those times! --- Sir Chris</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1