Tencent has fingers in a lot of pies, but they aren't magic, they can't make companies dance on a whim.
This week's events suggest otherwise, as Tencent was leading the charge to rebuke the Rockets, offering Chinese Rockets fans who paid for one team streaming to switch teams at no extra charge; and was very likely part of the decision to ban Ng Wai. The fact that they have so many connections both in and out of China gives them a good deal of power.
Tencent has plenty of influence, but they do not have control over companies merely because of investment in them as has been implied.
The fact that Reddit is super angry at China while the NBA caved to them despite similar stakes by Tencent is proof of that, or how deferential Blizzard is to China compared to Epic despite tencent's larger investment in Epic. The key factor is "how much do they care about China supporting them", not "does Tencent own a partial stake."
That's not really a good simplification imo. Everyone has limits to freedom of speech. China's is significantly more restricting, and I think it's best to stick with the truth. Otherwise you start having to argue about why your invisible line is better than their invisible line, and that's a losing argument even if you "win".
Epic put out a statement supporting freedom of speech for players and creators, and they are 40% controlled by Tencent.
Maybe reconsider making a single Chinese company out to be some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master making everyone dance to their tune, rather than considering that all corporations are amoral machines that care about profit more than what is just or correct.
Yes, I recognize this means the companies speaking out in solidarity or support of freedom of speech are also doing it as a calculated move.
Epic is still majority held by Sweeney, though. Tencent does not have a controlling interest. They can sell their shares, but Sweeney calls the shots.
And if the Chinese government asks Tencent to do something, they do it.
I didn't realize this. I had assumed that Epic was publicaly traded, in which case 40% is effectively majority control. My bad.
I completely disagree. The Chinese government does not recognize freedom of speech; the whole point of freedom of speech is that it is there to protect speech which "challenges national sovereignty and social stability."
I completely disagree. The Chinese government does not recognize freedom of speech; the whole point of freedom of speech is that it is there to protect speech which "challenges national sovereignty and social stability."
Freedom of speech is more than just "can talk bad about the government." Like, this is a thread about freedom of speech and "talk bad about the government" is a small amount of what we've talked about! The OP, in fact, is about something else entirely: too much freedom of speech specifically with private entities. Nothing at all to do with national sovereignty or social stability.
Epic put out a statement supporting freedom of speech for players and creators, and they are 40% controlled by Tencent.
Maybe reconsider making a single Chinese company out to be some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master making everyone dance to their tune, rather than considering that all corporations are amoral machines that care about profit more than what is just or correct.
Yes, I recognize this means the companies speaking out in solidarity or support of freedom of speech are also doing it as a calculated move.
Epic is still majority held by Sweeney, though. Tencent does not have a controlling interest. They can sell their shares, but Sweeney calls the shots.
And if the Chinese government asks Tencent to do something, they do it.
I didn't realize this. I had assumed that Epic was publicaly traded, in which case 40% is effectively majority control. My bad.
Tencent does have substantial control over nominations to the board. In ten years this same situation could have played out *very* differently, since a united board still has ways to act against a majority shareholder, but as the board stands Epic is one of the few in the industry that's made up of actual industry people, so I don't see there being any traction there (Activision/Blizzard, on the other hand, has a board of directors that includes a former sports team owner and a guy whose entire resume is a litany of candy and snack companies and then suddenly ATVI down at the bottom).
There's *technically* some recourse for significant minority shareholders like this to claim that the majority shareholder is acting counter to their investment, but have fun trying to make that fly in a US court in this case, it's hard enough to pull off when CEOs are literally burning the forest around them.
I completely disagree. The Chinese government does not recognize freedom of speech; the whole point of freedom of speech is that it is there to protect speech which "challenges national sovereignty and social stability."
Freedom of speech is more than just "can talk bad about the government." Like, this is a thread about freedom of speech and "talk bad about the government" is a small amount of what we've talked about! The OP, in fact, is about something else entirely: too much freedom of speech specifically with private entities. Nothing at all to do with national sovereignty or social stability.
Government critical speech describes the incentive for the government to restrict speech, and the government is in control of free speech regulation. Therefore, government critical speech is indirectly related to all speech issues, including actions taken to regulate other speech topics.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What the Chinese government thinks challenges social stability is whatever speech the government does not like. This is not just speech critical of the government but also anything that might make the government look terrible.
Epic put out a statement supporting freedom of speech for players and creators, and they are 40% controlled by Tencent.
Maybe reconsider making a single Chinese company out to be some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master making everyone dance to their tune, rather than considering that all corporations are amoral machines that care about profit more than what is just or correct.
Yes, I recognize this means the companies speaking out in solidarity or support of freedom of speech are also doing it as a calculated move.
Epic is still majority held by Sweeney, though. Tencent does not have a controlling interest. They can sell their shares, but Sweeney calls the shots.
And if the Chinese government asks Tencent to do something, they do it.
I didn't realize this. I had assumed that Epic was publicaly traded, in which case 40% is effectively majority control. My bad.
Tencent does have substantial control over nominations to the board. In ten years this same situation could have played out *very* differently, since a united board still has ways to act against a majority shareholder, but as the board stands Epic is one of the few in the industry that's made up of actual industry people, so I don't see there being any traction there (Activision/Blizzard, on the other hand, has a board of directors that includes a former sports team owner and a guy whose entire resume is a litany of candy and snack companies and then suddenly ATVI down at the bottom).
There's *technically* some recourse for significant minority shareholders like this to claim that the majority shareholder is acting counter to their investment, but have fun trying to make that fly in a US court in this case, it's hard enough to pull off when CEOs are literally burning the forest around them.
They don't have to make it in a US court. They could make the argument in a Chinese court, and it would be on the company to decide if it's worth giving up the China market to defy the Chinese court requirements.
It is entirely possible I am being alarmist, but I've also seen how the EU has been able to dictate requirements to the US. Especially over things that gaming is sensitive too (EULA, for example). And I'm not saying what the EU has done is bad, but any time something good can be done, something bad can also be done.
As a matter of fact, China has been placing importance on the guiding role of media since the founding of the Communist Party of China.
It was Mao Zedong, one of the founding fathers of the Party, who once said that media and military power have equal importance. Mao was also the first to coin the term “statesman-run newspapers,” meaning that the Party should guide public opinion through media.
When it comes to the international arena, China, with its rising standing, is always the subject of worldwide speculation. Its every move is watched by global media.
However, China still has a relatively weak voice in the international community. Given that there are barely any Chinese media outlets with strong international influence that can tell the “Chinese story,” China’s voice can barely be heard on the international stage.
Thus, the Party is encouraging state-run media to guide public opinion by focusing more on innovative approaches in line with new trends in the media industry--not imposing more restraints.
China's ongoing reform calls for an urgent change in public opinion, ideology and intellectual support. All media should make efforts to implement the principle and direction set forth by the central government.
In the next few years, Chinese media will enter a promising future.
It is the duty of the press to follow the party and the non-state run news journalist better hope for mercy if they deviate. They are going against the government if they deviate.
Epic put out a statement supporting freedom of speech for players and creators, and they are 40% controlled by Tencent.
Maybe reconsider making a single Chinese company out to be some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master making everyone dance to their tune, rather than considering that all corporations are amoral machines that care about profit more than what is just or correct.
Yes, I recognize this means the companies speaking out in solidarity or support of freedom of speech are also doing it as a calculated move.
Epic is still majority held by Sweeney, though. Tencent does not have a controlling interest. They can sell their shares, but Sweeney calls the shots.
And if the Chinese government asks Tencent to do something, they do it.
I can do math, and so know that 25% in Activion-Blizzard is also not a controlling interest.
I also know that companies that aren't Chinese, but have operations/interests in China will also accommodate the Chinese government when asked. Because that's what I've said several times now in this thread, including the very post you quoted.
So you're going to need to try again to convince me that Tencent is the evil wizard that casts the magic spell to make companies do things that China wants.
I completely disagree. The Chinese government does not recognize freedom of speech; the whole point of freedom of speech is that it is there to protect speech which "challenges national sovereignty and social stability."
Freedom of speech is more than just "can talk bad about the government." Like, this is a thread about freedom of speech and "talk bad about the government" is a small amount of what we've talked about! The OP, in fact, is about something else entirely: too much freedom of speech specifically with private entities. Nothing at all to do with national sovereignty or social stability.
yeah especially in the context of this thread this kind of simplification is dumb. Freedom of speech is clearly not binary, and presenting it as such is harmful both to debate and to our ability to understand other nations and people.
Epic put out a statement supporting freedom of speech for players and creators, and they are 40% controlled by Tencent.
Maybe reconsider making a single Chinese company out to be some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master making everyone dance to their tune, rather than considering that all corporations are amoral machines that care about profit more than what is just or correct.
Yes, I recognize this means the companies speaking out in solidarity or support of freedom of speech are also doing it as a calculated move.
Epic is still majority held by Sweeney, though. Tencent does not have a controlling interest. They can sell their shares, but Sweeney calls the shots.
And if the Chinese government asks Tencent to do something, they do it.
I can do math, and so know that 25% in Activion-Blizzard is also not a controlling interest.
I also know that companies that aren't Chinese, but have operations/interests in China will also accommodate the Chinese government when asked. Because that's what I've said several times now in this thread, including the very post you quoted.
So you're going to need to try again to convince me that Tencent is the evil wizard that casts the magic spell to make companies do things that China wants.
Activision-Blizzard has more Chinese connection than just Tencent. Honestly, Netease is probably even more of a influence, because several of Blizzard's biggest games are localized and run in China by them. They also have a much bigger presence in China than Epic's token office.
I can do math, and so know that 25% in Activion-Blizzard is also not a controlling interest.
I also know that companies that aren't Chinese, but have operations/interests in China will also accommodate the Chinese government when asked. Because that's what I've said several times now in this thread, including the very post you quoted.
So you're going to need to try again to convince me that Tencent is the evil wizard that casts the magic spell to make companies do things that China wants.
Activision Blizzard is not a private company, though.
I was mostly responding to your example of Tencent and Epic, which was invalid due to how Epic is set up currently. That being said, if you honestly think Tencent won't do what the Chinese government wants, I don't know what else there is to discuss besides asking you to look at how China and their state corporations run.
There's a reason Huawei was a big focus of attention.
Bizazedo on
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Been seeing tweets about Blizzard blocking users from deleting their accounts to boycott them, I imagine to keep their subscriber numbers looking good,
Been seeing tweets about Blizzard blocking users from deleting their accounts to boycott them, I imagine to keep their subscriber numbers looking good,
Been seeing tweets about Blizzard blocking users from deleting their accounts to boycott them, I imagine to keep their subscriber numbers looking good,
Been seeing tweets about Blizzard blocking users from deleting their accounts to boycott them, I imagine to keep their subscriber numbers looking good,
No they aren't. It was most likely a server issue, probably due to being overloaded by a sudden influx of people suddenly deciding to cancel their accounts ~~~for unknown reasons~~~
I still can't believe Blizzard hasn't commented. The amount of time that has gone by with zero comment is just unreal in this day and age. They must really have no idea what to do.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
+7
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I still can't believe Blizzard hasn't commented. The amount of time that has gone by with zero comment is just unreal in this day and age. They must really have no idea what to do.
It's not surprising - they've had a fanbase that's basically backed them for decades, and so they thought that they would be able to weather this. They were not expecting to be turned on so utterly.
I still can't believe Blizzard hasn't commented. The amount of time that has gone by with zero comment is just unreal in this day and age. They must really have no idea what to do.
At this point, I don't think they will say something at all. Their Chinese overlords have spoken, and now they're hunkered down and waiting for this to all blow over.
They were probably so pumped this year to be able to get over what happened last year, they had their statement prepped to be so humble and self-deprecating to get back in good graces after the "out of season April fools day prank," ready to take a knee and get back in peoples' good graces.
I can do math, and so know that 25% in Activion-Blizzard is also not a controlling interest.
I also know that companies that aren't Chinese, but have operations/interests in China will also accommodate the Chinese government when asked. Because that's what I've said several times now in this thread, including the very post you quoted.
So you're going to need to try again to convince me that Tencent is the evil wizard that casts the magic spell to make companies do things that China wants.
Activision Blizzard is not a private company, though.
I was mostly responding to your example of Tencent and Epic, which was invalid due to how Epic is set up currently. That being said, if you honestly think Tencent won't do what the Chinese government wants, I don't know what else there is to discuss besides asking you to look at how China and their state corporations run.
There's a reason Huawei was a big focus of attention.
Go back and re-read my posts because there's no way they suggest anything of the sort.
From Reddit, so grain of salt as to veracity, but apparently changing your Battletag to FreeHongKong violates their naming guidelines.
Not going to test it, but if true....interesting.
The Internet Hate Machine is currently going full bore, so I would take things like this with a giant grain of salt unless you see it confirmed on a legitimate site.
Go back and re-read my posts because there's no way they suggest anything of the sort.
You're missing the point. Tencent is representative of the issue because they're buying / getting involved in numerous companies and take direction from the Chinese government. You're simplifying it to "Well, we were going to do this, but Tencent called and said not to."
No. It's not that simple. It's more that if someone does A, they lose out on all of that sweet sweet Yuan of Tencent. Corporations want to avoid this as they like money, obviously, so they'll make sure Tencent is happy.
Tencent is happy when China is happy.
My reply to you was only that you misunderstood Epic and Tencent's relationship and didn't realize Epic was still a private company controlled by Sweeney and thus less influenced by losing all that sweet sweet Yuan because private companies are not solely bound to increasing value to shareholders. They're private, they can do what the controlling owners want (for the most part).
Epic put out a statement supporting freedom of speech for players and creators, and they are 40% controlled by Tencent.
Maybe reconsider making a single Chinese company out to be some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master making everyone dance to their tune, rather than considering that all corporations are amoral machines that care about profit more than what is just or correct.
That's what I was referring to, that your post about it involving Epic was incorrect.
So, yeah, I did read your post .
Bizazedo on
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
You're saying Tencent is "representative" of the issue, despite all these other companies taking direction from the Chinese government without Tencent investing in them. Why are they singled out as representative, because they're a Chinese-based company? If so... how are they representative of, say, Disney, or Apple, or American Airlines, etc., all of whom have taken direction from the Chinese government and/or taken action of their own initiative because they knew that it would appease the Chinese government, because they wanted access to the Chinese market, not because they were being invested in by a Chinese-based company.
Posts
Tencent has plenty of influence, but they do not have control over companies merely because of investment in them as has been implied.
The fact that Reddit is super angry at China while the NBA caved to them despite similar stakes by Tencent is proof of that, or how deferential Blizzard is to China compared to Epic despite tencent's larger investment in Epic. The key factor is "how much do they care about China supporting them", not "does Tencent own a partial stake."
That's not really a good simplification imo. Everyone has limits to freedom of speech. China's is significantly more restricting, and I think it's best to stick with the truth. Otherwise you start having to argue about why your invisible line is better than their invisible line, and that's a losing argument even if you "win".
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I didn't realize this. I had assumed that Epic was publicaly traded, in which case 40% is effectively majority control. My bad.
I completely disagree. The Chinese government does not recognize freedom of speech; the whole point of freedom of speech is that it is there to protect speech which "challenges national sovereignty and social stability."
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Freedom of speech is more than just "can talk bad about the government." Like, this is a thread about freedom of speech and "talk bad about the government" is a small amount of what we've talked about! The OP, in fact, is about something else entirely: too much freedom of speech specifically with private entities. Nothing at all to do with national sovereignty or social stability.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Tencent does have substantial control over nominations to the board. In ten years this same situation could have played out *very* differently, since a united board still has ways to act against a majority shareholder, but as the board stands Epic is one of the few in the industry that's made up of actual industry people, so I don't see there being any traction there (Activision/Blizzard, on the other hand, has a board of directors that includes a former sports team owner and a guy whose entire resume is a litany of candy and snack companies and then suddenly ATVI down at the bottom).
There's *technically* some recourse for significant minority shareholders like this to claim that the majority shareholder is acting counter to their investment, but have fun trying to make that fly in a US court in this case, it's hard enough to pull off when CEOs are literally burning the forest around them.
Government critical speech describes the incentive for the government to restrict speech, and the government is in control of free speech regulation. Therefore, government critical speech is indirectly related to all speech issues, including actions taken to regulate other speech topics.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They don't have to make it in a US court. They could make the argument in a Chinese court, and it would be on the company to decide if it's worth giving up the China market to defy the Chinese court requirements.
It is entirely possible I am being alarmist, but I've also seen how the EU has been able to dictate requirements to the US. Especially over things that gaming is sensitive too (EULA, for example). And I'm not saying what the EU has done is bad, but any time something good can be done, something bad can also be done.
The various English language editorials make it obvious what China means by free speech.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0224/c98649-9020663.html It is the duty of the press to follow the party and the non-state run news journalist better hope for mercy if they deviate. They are going against the government if they deviate.
I can do math, and so know that 25% in Activion-Blizzard is also not a controlling interest.
I also know that companies that aren't Chinese, but have operations/interests in China will also accommodate the Chinese government when asked. Because that's what I've said several times now in this thread, including the very post you quoted.
So you're going to need to try again to convince me that Tencent is the evil wizard that casts the magic spell to make companies do things that China wants.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
yeah especially in the context of this thread this kind of simplification is dumb. Freedom of speech is clearly not binary, and presenting it as such is harmful both to debate and to our ability to understand other nations and people.
Activision-Blizzard has more Chinese connection than just Tencent. Honestly, Netease is probably even more of a influence, because several of Blizzard's biggest games are localized and run in China by them. They also have a much bigger presence in China than Epic's token office.
Well, that is a very bipartisan group.
Free speech is one of the few things there is wide bipartisan agreement on.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
"B-b-but Trump is...". Well, we already established that the NBA is fine with sucking dick, and they decided that Xinnie Pooh's tasted better, so....
Ostensibly.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As long as you arent a minority kneeling quietly during the anthem.
MWO: Adamski
I was mostly responding to your example of Tencent and Epic, which was invalid due to how Epic is set up currently. That being said, if you honestly think Tencent won't do what the Chinese government wants, I don't know what else there is to discuss besides asking you to look at how China and their state corporations run.
There's a reason Huawei was a big focus of attention.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
wouldn't that be illegal?
This was quickly fixed, looks like it might have actually been an honest to god server issue.
No they aren't. It was most likely a server issue, probably due to being overloaded by a sudden influx of people suddenly deciding to cancel their accounts ~~~for unknown reasons~~~
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I'm so over Blizzard. What a shame.
It's not surprising - they've had a fanbase that's basically backed them for decades, and so they thought that they would be able to weather this. They were not expecting to be turned on so utterly.
At this point, I don't think they will say something at all. Their Chinese overlords have spoken, and now they're hunkered down and waiting for this to all blow over.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And then they go and do this a month out.
eff that
Don't delete your account. You already paid for those games. Just don't subscribe or buy more in the future.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
honestly, I never play them
the only blizzard game I really wouldn't mind going back to would be Diablo 1 and I have several copies of that
Not going to test it, but if true....interesting.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Go back and re-read my posts because there's no way they suggest anything of the sort.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The Internet Hate Machine is currently going full bore, so I would take things like this with a giant grain of salt unless you see it confirmed on a legitimate site.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
You're missing the point. Tencent is representative of the issue because they're buying / getting involved in numerous companies and take direction from the Chinese government. You're simplifying it to "Well, we were going to do this, but Tencent called and said not to."
No. It's not that simple. It's more that if someone does A, they lose out on all of that sweet sweet Yuan of Tencent. Corporations want to avoid this as they like money, obviously, so they'll make sure Tencent is happy.
Tencent is happy when China is happy.
My reply to you was only that you misunderstood Epic and Tencent's relationship and didn't realize Epic was still a private company controlled by Sweeney and thus less influenced by losing all that sweet sweet Yuan because private companies are not solely bound to increasing value to shareholders. They're private, they can do what the controlling owners want (for the most part).
That controlling owner is Sweeney.
Your post I was replying to -
That's what I was referring to, that your post about it involving Epic was incorrect.
So, yeah, I did read your post
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar