When you exaggerate an argument to the point of such absurdity that you no longer work under the confines of what was stated, itâs no longer the same principle.
I think that about this particular case and clause too. And I wouldnât be surprised if that was part of the reason he got his money back.
They do operate under US law and they do respect constitutional rights. You donât have a constitutional right to use of someoneâs else property or to force them to associate with you. That is why free speech applies to the State and not private property.
It does make sense because they have the right of association. It is also a constitutional right. The government can only limit those when the State interest in protecting life, liberty, etc far outweigh it. For example you canât scream âFire!â in a movie theater because thatâs gotten people killed.
Most TOS have been adopted as they have been to prevent terrorism and harassment. If someone kills themselves because they got themselves banned on all the social media platforms, they were probably posting pretty extreme things.
Yes, he was. Which is why he got suspended. They didnât want to associate with him because they were scared it would cost them money. Anyone who denies that is a fool.
Then everyone else used their freedom of speech to criticize Blizzard. And Blizzard, thanks to social pressure, corrected their greedy action.
Thatâs all sides using the freedom. Legal freedoms are about preserving our ability to make decisions in ourselves and our lives. They arenât about policing morality.
Why do you seem to think that kicking someone out of your house (or off your platform in blizzards case) is even somewhat comparable to murdering someone?
If you invite me into your house, and I go on a tirade and tell you and your whole family off, are you going to just let me stay there?
I wouldnât let someone stay in my house if they did that. Am I taking away their first amendment rights? I donât think so.
Kicking them off my property is fine and legal. Murdering them is not.
Blizzard should have the same rights to kick someone off their property or platform as you and I do.
Yup. Unless itâs causing extreme detriment to society (like during segregation), the government shouldnât be limiting someoneâs ability to kick someone off their property. It doesnât that mean that every particular decision anyone makes is moral. Sometimes what you have a legal right to do, and what is moral are different. But the immoral examples donât outweigh that they should have a legal right to do it.
You donât have a right to someone elseâs property. You do have a right to life. They are not the thing or principle. Itâs absurd.
And they can. You donât have a right to someone elseâs property. Whether that entitles you a refund depends on the country.
Thatâs an example of legal rights differing by country. Other countries citizens have decided that this meets that racism meets the âextreme circumstancesâ that allow a State to interfere. Since itâs a criminal claim in that country, it has to meet that countryâs defintion and not the opinion of Facebook.
Defamation of character is also not allowed in the US. Since racism is not only legal, but constitutional right to be racist, the only way to address itâs harm in the United States is people choosing not to associate with that person.
Both countries have societal ways to address that problem, they just choose to address it differently. I would argue the American is a lot more free than the German, since losing a Facebook account is not as bad as having the goverment punish you and convicting you of a crime.
I donât know. But TOS have limits and specific provisions can be challenged in court. Some of them have been upheld and some of them have resulted in companies being forced to pay damages. They still donât gotta associate with you.
The only times they have to is when they have signed a contract that says theyâd have to or in special circumstances where the government has had to intervene because of the harm caused to society.
Yes.
Yes and yes.
There would probably have to be to ensure free and fair elections.
I did. Like I said most of my effort in the beginning was doing my very small part to make Blizzard reverse itâs action. After that, I just commented on this conversation because it was about the legality.
I am black. There are people out there right now advocating that I should be back in chains or killed for the color of my skin. I think, morally, it should be within my right not to associate with those people. If someone wants to come to my house and decides to shout white supremacist garbage, I am kicking them out. And that should be my right.
Everyone should have the right to associate with whom they please. Morality mostly should be enforced by social consequences for being immoral. People not wanting to deal with you anymore is one of them.
That doesnât mean any given individualâs decision is moral or just. When they step out of line, we have the freedom to call them out for it. Thatâs what happened here.
A boycott of Blizzard and social media pressure is the way this issue should be resolved, not with the government taking away Blizzardâs right to associate with whom they please.
The right of association may not mean much when itâs someone being a loudmouth on a video game, but that doesnât make it an unimportant human right. And that preservation of that right can preserve human rights every bit as much as speech.
This is why both must be protected.
You have a right to say what you want. You donât have a right to do it on my property using my money. If you donât have any of your own, go use a public space. Thatâs one of the reasons we have them.
You have a right to continue using a product. Once you purchase it, it is yours. Stuff like social media and video games are services. And you donât have any more to keep using them when you behave badly than have to be a pest at bars or disrupt movie theaters.
Those games as services are ongoing products with ongoing support that costs time, resources, and money. And as such they have stricter rules on your behavior so that you arenât allowed to annoy their other customers or Blizzard entertainment.
I can get behind them having to issue a full or partial refund for permanent bans, but itâs treated as a service because it is one.
And no we arenât talking about mental illness. Racism is a mindset that people choose to adopt, for the most part. And yes there should be social consequences for it.
Racism has real repercussions on the health, safety, and livelihood of POC. And I shouldnât be forced to associate with anyone that would jeopardize that.
An event that stemmed from a riots in a specific area is most definitely going to be political. Pride month is political. I think what youâre referring to is just simply being LGBTQ which isnât.
If you discover someone is mentally ill, you treat them according to the best available health practices. Consequences to racism tend to be reactive. You do a racist thing and then suffer the consequences. Same as any other negative thing.
if i donât comment about this everywhere not everyone will hear it. also, you didnât watch the video, and if you did, you werenât paying attention to video from minutes 3:40-9:00
Donât forget the protestors slit some police officerâs throats, beat up the elderly, and beat dissenters with metal bats etc. They are very nice people.
The whole âif youre boycotting blizzard products, you shouldnt be using the forumsâ argument is so incredibly stupid.
The forums dont give them money and they dont inflate the active player counts of their games. I would think that this is obvious, but this comment shows up on every hong kong thread
This mindset is pointlessly naive. Why is Blizzard catching your ire so much? Why are you not boycotting all companies that bend over backwards towards China?
Itâs âtaking a standâ in the most convenient, impactless, and short sighted way possible.
Youâre like the people who change your profile to âThoughts and prayers to the tsunami victims!â and then tell everyone how amazing you are for making a difference.
First of, very few people give 2 ****s about the ow forums, including blizzard workers. That generally goes for most video game forums.
Second of all, Blizzard remedied the situation already. A six month ban is a slap on the wrist. Actually, itâs kinda like a vacation for blitzchung. Think of it as an offseason.
Third, Blizzard legally has the right to(and should) punish people who violate their contract. Itâs like Kanye saying âBush doesnât like black peopleâ on TV or saying FHRITP on the news. Using someone elseâs public platform to say something controversial is NOT OK.