[A2017U1]

> the Blizzard controversy indicates just how badly the company has screwed up here, and the level of pressure that the community and anti-censorship activists are going to apply against it.

Got a good chuckle at "anti-censorship" activists. Last I looked that was the alt-right. Free speech is a dirty word associated with Nazis for many people today (especially outside the US). Find it terrifying how many of my enlightened friends consider blanket censorship and deplatforming a legitimate way to deal with unpleasant types.

Guessing the author is aware of that modern anti-censorship fervour is almost entirely isolated to a group of people not exactly popular with the audience.

Fixing negative connotations with a vague rebranding is the pinnacle of marketing and the antithesis of journalism.

[PavlovsCat]

> Got a good chuckle at "anti-censorship" activists. Last I looked that was the alt-right.

It was never true that the alt-right were the "the" anti-censorship activists.

> Free speech is a dirty word associated with Nazis for many people today

Many things are associated with many things for many people today, so what. Let them speak for themselves, and I'll reply to them, but what can anyone reply to your vague reference? It's just an unproven and undisprovable claim.

> Guessing the author is aware of that modern anti-censorship fervour is almost entirely isolated to a group of people not exactly popular with the audience.

You're not guessing that, you're claiming that, based on one word.

[perl4ever]

"blanket censorship and deplatforming"

Maybe the people complaining about this aren't in favor of free speech, they just hate private property.

[A2017U1]

Just to clarify because it's a tad vague, you support Blizzard's right to both remove a winners players prizemoney and future ability to compete because of one sentence on a livestream?

Or perhaps less inflammatory and antagonistic, would you support private property even if it were levelled against oneself?

[perl4ever]

I don't subscribe to the idea that property rights are primary and inviolable as the basis of my thinking about what is right and what is wrong.

It's obvious to me that most people do not support private property when it is "levelled against" them.

[np_tedious]

Property is speech

Tax is theft

Speech is violence

Religion is the smile on a dog

I think you could have some fun with the transitive property with statements like this

[p410n3]

> Got a good chuckle at "anti-censorship" activists. Last I looked that was the alt-right. Free speech is a dirty word associated with Nazis for many people today (especially outside the US).

What would you call the people over at the TOR project, the ones that have developed obfs4, meek and snowflake, other than "anti-censorship activists"?

What about the shadowsocks project, greaterfire dot org, Trojan and the likes.

Are these all nazis then?

[A2017U1]

The greying of this only comment here despite not a single reply ironically only proves my point further.

I guess the "anti-censorship activists" aren't here to save me today. Oh well, trivial problem for me, tad bigger issue for HK.

Is censorship bad my friendly digital co-inhabitants?

Or did the my comment just hit the scraping regexes in the right spot?

[p410n3]

Well I agree, thats bullshit