SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the big-brother-is-morally-judging-you dept.
On December 7, a Magic: The Gathering player with a YouTube channel called "UnSleevedMedia" ( https://www.youtube.com/user/mtgheadquarters ) was banned for life from the game by the Hasbro subsidiary Wizards of the Coast for allegedly harassing others in the MtG community on social media. As a consequence, he immediately lost access to all the virtual items he's previously purchased while receiving no refund, and he may no longer play online, partake in tournaments, or cover events on his YouTube channel (details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIh3ykLBzOM ).
The ban was issued after articles appeared on gaming news sites Polygon ( https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/29/16709796/magic-the-gathering-cosplayer-harassment-youtube ) and Kotaku ( https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/magic-subreddit-on-lockdown-after-cosplayer-quit-due-to-alleged-harassment/ ), where a cosplayer accused UnsleevedMedia operator Jeremy Hambly of persistent harassment. (Note: While the articles report on the controversy, neither present any actual evidence for either side.)
While Mr Hambly claims that the allegations of threats and harassment are demonstrably false, and that the evidence against him is based on excerpts from Twitter/Facebook posts taken out of context, he now says he's uncovered something quite chilling while investigating the case: evidence that employees at Wizards of the Coast are trawling the Internet looking for social media activities going back years in search of conduct they might find "objectionable".
In at least one instance they've allegedly requested and gained access to a closed Facebook group only tangentially related to the MtG community, and then issued bans and warnings based on the contents of conversations therein. This includes a one-year ban against professional player Travis Woo, who has now effectively lost his job. Mr Hambly presented the evidence for these claims in a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGFcLvDRJNQ ) on his other channel, "The Quartering" ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwE_ODI1YTbdjkzuSi1Nag ).
In response to this, he has started a change.org petition ( https://www.change.org/p/hasbro-wizards-of-the-coast-must-reinstate-travis-woo-jeremy-hambly ) asking people to boycott all Hasbro products until such time as the bans are reversed. His main argument is that corporations should not be allowed enforce End User License Agreements that dictate what a person may or may not say or do in their spare time on social media.
(Disclaimer: I've signed the petition, as I wouldn't like to see a future where a Twitter spat could cost someone their Steam games.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM (1 child)
The concept of free speech is much broader than the legal implementation of it. You're thinking of the first amendment. Saying "but, but muh free speech!" may actually be appropriate here, in the sense that you have every right to want the company to become more respecting of free speech. I think it is preferable for a company or website to strongly favor freedom of speech, like SoylentNews does.
Just because you can do something (ban anyone who says something you don't like) doesn't mean it is ethical to do so, and certainly does not mean you're exempt from criticism.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:33PM
Absolutely. And while I generally don't buy stuff that Hasbro sells, if I did, I certainly wouldn't do so any more after this.
My point was that from a *legal* (not ethical) standpoint, free speech is irrelevant in this case.
From an ethical standpoint, it may well be (and it wouldn't surprise me in the least) that Hasbro is acting completely unethically. It's a corporation, what do you expect? An LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) isn't around to be ethical or "do the right thing," even though some small percentage may do so. They are around to make profit.
I'm not surprised that Hasbro took the action they did and I explained why. Is it ethical? Probably not. Was it the right thing for them to do? I don't know enough about it to say one way or another.
However, Hasbro was within their rights, based on the contract explicitly accepted by this guy, to do what they did.
That's not to say this guy (and others) shouldn't piss and moan about it. Even better, he should file a lawsuit and hold daily press conferences to shame Hasbro.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr