Saw people talking in comments at several places now, expressing animosity towards them to say the least, always presented as something that everyone seems to know about.
Saw people talking in comments at several places now, expressing animosity towards them to say the least, always presented as something that everyone seems to know about.
From what I’ve read, his criticisms aren’t valid because this is a petition to legislate, not legislation. He seems to think the wording of the petition is important when it isn’t, the number of signatures it gets is
Best case scenario he’s got no idea what he’s talking about, worst case, he’s deliberately muddying the water.
The petition has specific wording about how the legislation would work. He was critical not because he didn’t believe in the cause, but because he felt it wasn’t well thought out. The reality is, art takes many forms, and sometimes you can only go see a play on the one night it’s performed if you happen to buy a ticket to see it, and that’s how the creator intended it. Art is not a one-size-fits-all field, and a half-baked piece of legislation would make innovative experiences in game design illegal.
He also pointed out the very real potential attack vector for malicious actors to effectively DOS small games at launch, ruining the experience for other players, causing the game to fail and be forced to release a means for customers to self host, only for the malicious actor to then make a profit on rehosting.
Everyone involvrd wants to get rid of scummy business practices, but this initiative is short sighted in how it describes the behaviour it doesn’t like.
The wording of the petition has zero impact on any legislation that may follow.
A petition’s purpose is literally only to alert the governing body that enough people give a shit about this that they should have a discussion about it. It has no additional power beyond that.
That discussion might end up going nowhere, it might end up convincing some politicians that maybe we need some legislation in this area. What they will then do, is talk to everyone they can about coming up with legislation that’s practical and works for everyone involved.
The wording of the petition does not matter, because it has no bearing on any subsequent action whatsoever. All a petition can do is force a conversation between politicians.
Your comment is a fantastic example of how he has muddied the waters, none of what you have said is relevant at all to the petition process.
We are not a direct democracy, legislators write legislation. Petitioners don’t.
All this guy is doing is silencing people.
Again, the petition was short sighted in how it described the behavior it didn’t like. Legislators will write legislation to address the issue identified by the petition. If the petition is identifying the wrong issue, then we will end up with the wrong legislation. We need to have discussion as a community to agree on the exact behaviour we don’t like. I think that’s important, you can disagree.
That’s not at all how any of this works.
The petition only makes legislators aware of the issue
They will then come to their own conclusions, through outreach and research.
There is no way in hell that any legislator just takes the words of a petition without thought or any further research.
Petitions are about numbers, not words.
I feel like we’re going in circles now, so no reason to continue. I agree that that is how it should work. I maintain that it’s important the petition states the actual issue and not a percieved one. Agree to disagree.