D&D 5E D&D Beyond Self-Censorship: Pride Month Digital Dice Blocked In Some Countries

[billd91]

Any good we try to do right now that seems "pointless" in the short-term (because it won't seem to change anything right now), can eventually pay off dividends down the line. Heck, the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States passed 50 years ago... and I think if we were to compare the rights and standing of women between 1972 and today, the passing of the ERA did a whole lot of good. It still ain't perfect by any stretch of course... but all us men and women who have grown up with the ERA as a thing have helped shift the narrative and our society for the better. Just like those who will grow up under the banner of Pride will do so in the decades to come.

um…

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States passed 50 years ago

I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid.

 

[LordEntrails]

But demanding that companies do better is a pretty fundamental aspect of activism in our current societies,

It is. And its still something I find strange. In general I don't think companies should be obligated to engage in social issues. And when they chose to do so, should they not be allowed to do so as they wish? And of course, if we don't like how a company choses to do that, then we as individuals get to decide how we interact with them.

But just as I believe that I have no right to insist on how another human choses to interact on a social issue (as long as they are not doing so illegally and/or immorally), I don't see an individual's right to demand such of a corporation. BUT, I do hope that people and corporations CAN engage in discussions on the ways in which they chose to get involved (or not) in social issues.

So, by all means, try to engage WotC in discussing their decision if they are willing. But if they chose not to engage in such a discussion, take it for what it is and move on.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My suspects are that censure aren't be Erdogan. This doesn't know even about the existence of D&D. This may be something beyond regional self-censure.

 

[jgsugden]

....
I don't know what can be done about this, but I thought this kind of hypocritical behaviour should've been made known.

WotC/Beyondisn't going to do more than Marvel did when dealing with Dr. Strange's issues.

 

[Oblivnow]

It is. And its still something I find strange. In general I don't think companies should be obligated to engage in social issues. And when they chose to do so, should they not be allowed to do so as they wish? And of course, if we don't like how a company choses to do that, then we as individuals get to decide how we interact with them.

But just as I believe that I have no right to insist on how another human choses to interact on a social issue (as long as they are not doing so illegally and/or immorally), I don't see an individual's right to demand such of a corporation.

I don’t believe that companies should “be allowed to do as they wish” with regards to social issues. Do you think that companies should be allowed to do and say whatever they want without judgement? The reason why we want to put pressure on companies about LGBT issues is because corporations are powerful, culturally and politically, and influencing them can help create greater public pressure to prevent things like the massive backlash against trans people that is ongoing. It is a matter of safety for us, even if you think of this as just a “social issue.” I can’t attest to your intention, but the framing you use suggests that LGBT issues are thing that is just a branding thing to take a stance on, rather than being something that directly impacts us every day.
Hope this helps you understand why we care and why this is an area that activists engage with.

 

[LordEntrails]

I don’t believe that companies should “be allowed to do as they wish” with regards to social issues.

I do, within legal and ethical bounds.

Do you think that companies should be allowed to do and say whatever they want without judgement?

No, read what I wrote.

What demands are being made? Why are you and others acting as though an ultimatum was delivered to WotC?

I'm not. You are assuming statements and opinions that I did not express.

The reason why we want to put pressure on companies about LGBT issues is because corporations are powerful, culturally and politically, and influencing them can help create greater public pressure to prevent things like the massive backlash against trans people that is ongoing.

Oh, I understand why you want someone else to take up your cause. I've no problem with that. But it is the individuals responsible for those companies that get to make the decision if they want to take up your cause or not. They are under no ethical obligation to do so.

It is a matter of safety for us, even if you think of this as just a “social issue.”

I understand the safety aspect better than you give me credit for. And as has been pointed out, maybe WotC thinks its a safety issue for them. Do they not have the obligation to do what they feel is right to keep their employees safe?

Again, I'm all for you trying to get WoC to engage and explain their decision, until they do, we are all just assuming what is the cause for their decision.

I can’t attest to your intention, but the framing you use suggests that LGBT issues are thing that is just a thing to treasure a stance on, rather than being something that directly impacts us every day.

Then don't try. As I said, I'm more aware of the daily impacts than you give me credit for. And at no point do I suggest you don't continue to engage in activism.

My only issue is when one party tries to insist that another party engages in activism in a way that is acceptable to the first party. It assume arrogance, that the first party is "right" in their choice to the exclusion of other choices. Something the LGBTQ+ community can understand.

Hope this helps you understand why we care and why this is an area that activists engage with.

And I support those who chose to engage in that activism.

 

[Oblivnow]

My only issue is when one party tries to insist that another party engages in activism in a way that is acceptable to the first party. It assume arrogance, that the first party is "right" in their choice to the exclusion of other choices. Something the LGBTQ+ community can understand.

If that is your “only issue”, then there is no problem, as that isn’t happening here. And being LGBT doesn’t mean a rejection of normative ethics or the idea that “right” and “wrong” exist. Some belliefs are wrong, and suggestion that that is hypocritical is bizarre.

 

[Greg Benage]

I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid.

I mean, technically true...

 

[LordEntrails]

If that is your “only issue”, then there is no problem, as that isn’t happening here. And being LGBT doesn’t mean a rejection of normative ethics or the idea that “right” and “wrong” exist. Some belliefs are wrong, and suggestion that that is hypocritical is bizarre.

Agreed. There is just the ... tendency of internet debates to assume that stances are absolute, and not nuanced.

In this example, I'm not arguing or stating that some beliefs are not wrong. I've just chosen not to clarify every statement I make every time. I figured after clarifying with statements like "legally and ethically" several times, therefore I hope others would assume my statements are nuanced, and not absolutes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I hope others would assume my statements are nuanced, and not absolutes.

That's not how nuanced versus absolute works.

Either you make a nuanced statement, and there's no need to assume, or you don't. No-one can assume nuance that isn't there, and indeed history relates that it is a very bad idea to do so.

As for:

Again, I'm all for you trying to get WoC to engage and explain their decision, until they do, we are all just assuming what is the cause for their decision.

And we absolutely entitled to assume that if they fail to explain, or make dishonest explanations.

Right now, all we have is a clearly dishonest explanation, that blames "laws" which don't exist. It's not unreasonable in the least to assume from that that WotC either don't care, don't understand, or actively don't want to be helpful on this issue. The idea that it's a "safety issue" for WotC is fanciful to an insulting degree. WotC has no employees in Turkey as far as I can tell, though I'm open to correction on this.

 

[Malmuria]

I agree with @Ondath that this reeks of typical Western condescension and islamophobia. You can walk down İstiklal Avenue in Istanbul and you’ll see nothing but Western brands and chain restaurants (and cats). The government has support from religious fundamentalists but is more concerned with propping up its own power and repressing the kurds. The US and US companies have tremendous leverage and power to assert themselves in that space. I can’t imagine a situation where free, digital dice move the needle.

I’m not claiming that wotc or hasbro as a whole is either insincere in being gay-friendly or explicitly racist throughout or anything like that. It’s a relatively minor aspect of their business (digital dice), and maybe it just came down to one lawyer. If anything, it speaks to the almost unconscious instinct in the US and Europe to look at the rest of the world as being “backward.”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They are under no ethical obligation to do so.

They in fact are, if they seek to benefit from supporting those causes.

And WotC have sought to benefit from that. So they are ethically bound. If you pinkwash/rainbow-wash, you become ethically bound.

You talk about choice. WotC chose to engage on this. WotC chooses to engage on a lot of social issues. That's a choice, and they've made it, so acting like they haven't is just disingenuous.

 

[LordEntrails]

we absolutely entitled to assume

I guess to you "entitled" is a good thing. To me I frown upon those who feel they are "entitled".

They in fact are, if they seek to benefit from supporting those causes.

And WotC have sought to benefit from that. So they are ethically bound. If you pinkwash/rainbow-wash, you become ethically bound.

I don't really know where you are going with this. You have quoted without context so I'm not sure your intention.

Anyway, I believe @Ondath and I are understanding our individual views. I hope he (?) continues with his efforts and that he gets DDB to reconsider their decision, or at least give a more conscientious and complete explanation behind their decision.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess to you "entitled" is a good thing. To me I frown upon those who feel they are "entitled".

I guess you hate the English language? Jesus wept dude, this is politician-grade shenanigans on your part. You want me to misuse a word so you're not offended by it? Let's say "allowed", then, hmm? If that still offensive to you, well, the thesaurus is easy to find, pick another one.

Also, if we're going to be pedants, you're confusing an adjectival use with a verb, and so you're hoist by your own linguistic pedantry. You're literally making an error in your rush to engage in linguistic shenanigans.

I don't really know where you are going with this. You have quoted without context so I'm not sure your intention.

My point is straightforward.

You say companies are under no ethical obligation to support social causes. I kind of agree (not entirely, but there's complexity there and for the most part I agree).

However, if they do choose to support a social cause, and to attempt to reap publicity/PR benefit from supporting that cause, then they do become ethically obligated to be transparent about their support for that cause, and any bounds on it, and they need to actually support it. Something which WotC are currently failing extremely hard at. "No taxation without representation". Except here it's "No claiming you support social causes without actually doing it".

 

[TheSword]

They in fact are, if they seek to benefit from supporting those causes.

And WotC have sought to benefit from that. So they are ethically bound. If you pinkwash/rainbow-wash, you become ethically bound.

You talk about choice. WotC chose to engage on this. WotC chooses to engage on a lot of social issues. That's a choice, and they've made it, so acting like they haven't is just disingenuous.

Are WOC obliged to promote the dice in Nigeria or a country where it is firmly against the law?

What underhand motive do you think WOC has for supporting pride in some countries but not others… other than the advertised one that the law makes it difficult. As has been said already. Turkey does have censorship of pride in the media and online.

Incidentally it has already been stated that they have an office in Turkey with 20 staff.

 

[Burnside]

The idea that it's a "safety issue" for WotC is fanciful to an insulting degree. WotC has no employees in Turkey as far as I can tell, though I'm open to correction on this.

WotC doesn't, but Hasbro does. The idea that the physical safety of these Hasbro employees in Turkey would be in danger if Pride dice show up on DNDBeyond' homepage seems very remote (to say the least). The idea that Hasbro might run into some legal issues over it seems also unlikely but less remote. Again, we may not have all the info there.

Turkey is a country where LBGTQI+ content must be classified as 18+, which is a modification WotC/Hasbro may not want to implement, especially considering the small market for them there. It's also a country where, at least in some areas, including Ankara, public pro-LGBTQI+ demonstrations are illegal.

It would be good if WotC would clarify the reasons that they chose to self-censor in this particular case.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are WOC obliged to promote the dice in Nigeria or a country where it is firmly against the law?

No, because they clearly stated that, and it's correct and honest to say the law there prevents them.

Wouldn't you agree?

What underhand motive do you think WOC has for supporting pride in some countries but not others…

/rolleyes

You're going to do that? That's a straight-up bad faith argument on your part. You're better than that.

In case you're just being absolutely clumsy and terrible at arguing, or profoundly misunderstood/confused me with someone else, and didn't intend it as bad faith, as I've said, there's no "underhand motive", there's corporate laziness. That's not an "underhand" motive. It's barely a motive at all!! More like a lack of one! Companies with weak ethical teams often make assumptions, or individuals on those teams do a poor job of their due diligence, or decide it's just "not worth it" (i.e. the classic "jobsworth" approach).

Let's be real - I work at a large, ethics-concerned corporate company with a very similar revenue to WotC (interestingly). I was at a briefing today about certain ethical concerns, and how different countries are pushing in different directions. Part of that briefing was about how it can be hard to stay on top of this, but how its also important to stay on top of things, and to be aware of what is going on, and responsive to it. Part of my company's "brand" is that it is ethically diligent, and so they put effort in. Not every company in the sector does. But it's pretty bad to claim to support something but not actually to make any effort.

As I noted earlier, there are cases where the law simply stops you. But this isn't one of them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

WotC doesn't, but Hasbro does. The idea that the physical safety of these Hasbro employees in Turkey would be in danger if Pride dice show up on DNDBeyond' homepage seem very remote (to say the least). The idea that Hasbro might run into some legal issues over it seems also unlikely but less remote. Again, we may not have all the info there.

Turkey is a country where LBGTQI+ content must be classified as 18+, which is a modification WotC/Hasbro may not want to implement, especially considering the small market for them there. It's also a country where, at least in some areas, including Ankara, public pro-LGBTQI+ demonstrations are illegal.

It would be good if WotC would clarify the reasons that they chose to self-censor in this particular case.

WotC are the ones who made this claim, not Hasbro, so bringing Hasbro into it seems dodgy as heck to me.

You can look at the page. It literally says WotC. It doesn't say D&D Beyond, it doesn't say Hasbro, it very clearly identifies this as coming from WotC. Nevertheless thank you and @TheSword for the clarification.

I'd go further than saying "it would be good", I'd say unless they're transparent about this (and I understand it may take a few days to work through legal etc. if they're poorly run), we would be correct to see it as more pinkwashing/rainbow-washing than any genuine belief or commitment.

 

[Burnside]

WotC are the ones who made this claim, not Hasbro, so bringing Hasbro into it seems dodgy as heck to me.

DNDBeyond is a division of WotC which is a division of Hasbro. Not "bringing Hasbro into it" seems like a weird assertion and drawing an artificial distinction between a company and a particular part of that company.

It's hard to believe that Hasbro legal is a wholly distinct entity from WotC legal, or that WotC content policy wouldn't be informed by its parent company when marketing to a country where that parent company has 20 employees on the ground.